Read on Twitter
Dear Texas: When your argument is that election procedures were adopted in violation of the Electors clause, the only evidence you need to "marshal" is "what election procedures were adopted and how"
You don't need weeks, a magnifying glass, and Melissa Carone
You don't need weeks, a magnifying glass, and Melissa Carone
Also, why is there no other forum? You couldn't have sued in Federal court in Georgia or PA in advance of the election because ...?
Oh, right. No standing. That's still a problem
Oh, right. No standing. That's still a problem
Also, Texas? I feel like you should take that up with ... Texas
I kind of feel like "look, what you meant by Purcell was let's just wait until after the election and then invalidate ALL the votes" isn't necessarily the *strongest* argument
Also, you don't just get to make up a new principle of constitutional and election law and just call it "a variant of" Purcell (or anything else).
You can tell it's made up by the total absence of any citation to ANY case, ANYWHERE, saying that
You can tell it's made up by the total absence of any citation to ANY case, ANYWHERE, saying that
This is a very long-winded way of saying "no, our dumbass equal protection claims DON'T give you any basis to reverse the election, the Defendant States are right"
And saying in a footnote "yes, our case is worthless unless we've sufficiently alleged intentional fraud" is a bold strategy when your complaint doesn't actually allege intentional fraud at all, let alone meet the heightened pleading requirements for that claim
The argument that Texas' real interest here is in having Pence as the President of the Senate to break ties doesn't leave dumbfuckistan no matter how many times you use it, Ken
