Read on Twitter
There's a lot of "because we say so" energy in all of the Texas filings in this case. And particularly in their reply in support of injunctive relief.
I'm not going through their filings in full, but a couple of thoughts: https://twitter.com/jadler1969/status/1337418424247586818
I'm not going through their filings in full, but a couple of thoughts: https://twitter.com/jadler1969/status/1337418424247586818
1: Spewing Texas-sized volumes of bovine excrement requires a lot of words. They filed an oversized reply to the four response briefs. And because that wasn't enough words, the pushed off some of the key parts of their reply into a separate "reply" supporting injunctive relief.
(I put the second "reply" in scare quotes in the previous tweet because there isn't a separate "response" to the motion for interim relief - the states briefed that alongside their response to the motion for leave to file. Texas is doing a separate "reply" to get more words.)
2: Just FFS - they're leading off by doubling down on the "quadrillion to one" doofus. Just give the damn clowns their shoes back, Paxton.
You don't need them anyway. Nobody serious will ever believe you aren't a buffoon again whether you're wearing them or not.
You don't need them anyway. Nobody serious will ever believe you aren't a buffoon again whether you're wearing them or not.
3: They're just blatantly misrepresenting what Michigan said here. The side-by-side comparison is in the screenshots; see for yourself.
Oh, good. And they've attached a supplemental declaration from Cicchetti to their reply. Beautiful.
In all seriousness, though - Texas does a beautiful job of showing, in their reply in support of interim relief, why this is NOT a case where SCOTUS will want to dive into the merits:
"Texas rebuts Defendant States’ arguments that they complied with their State law."
"Texas rebuts Defendant States’ arguments that they complied with their State law."
The states are sovereign. Texas is claiming that Texas is better positioned to tell if Pennsylvania is complying with Pennsylvania law than Pennsylvania is. And they want the Supreme Court to resolve this squabble in their favor.
That's - not a thing.
That's - not a thing.
As for the rest, it's pretty clear from both reply briefs that Texas really isn't taking this all that seriously. (This makes me more angry, not less.)
I'm taking things out of order now, but:
I'm taking things out of order now, but:
1: Their argument that the case is not barred by laches is *entirely* dependent on their argument that their injury is that the wrong candidate won - and shows that they don't think they are injured if states don't follow their own elections laws but the "right" candidate wins.
2: The greatish State of Texas is peddling thinly-disguised racism at the United States Supreme Court.
3: An entire section that is one paragraph reliant entirely on the authority of "because we said so" isn't a sign that they're making a serious effort here.
4: The same goes for their argument regarding the availability of other forms of relief - which is shown here, in full.
As I've said before, nothing I've seen has budged the needle on this at all. The case is infuriatingly frivolous. It's remained so with every single filing.
