OK - let's get started. I've been actively avoiding other commentaries, even though I know @AkivaMCohen and others have started to look at it - I want to appreciate the full glory of this case without preconceptions.

But we're not going to start with the pleading. https://twitter.com/_justinlevitt_/status/1341508342619885568

Instead, we'll start by doing a docket search, because I strongly doubt the pleading itself is going to capture all the insanity - with only two weeks before Congress signs off, they've got to be looking for fast-track treatment and some kind of emergency injunction.

And, sure enough, there's a lot here - there's a motion for injunction, an affidavit, and a proposed order.

And there's a summons, which I literally cannot be reading right so I *have* to start there.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/19760252/wisconsin-voters-alliance-v-pence/

For the nonlawyers:
A summons, in this context, is civil, not criminal, and automatic. It's part (along with the complaint) of the paperwork that is served on the defendants.

Let's look at this one.

These ones, I should say, because there are a bunch.

They're suing Pence, the House of Representatives (which I'm not entirely sure is an entity that can be sued in this context), the United States Senate (likewise); and.......................................................

I'm.....

I.....

Ohmygod.

They're going to try to serve process on the Electoral College.

I am deceased.

Seven pages into what SHOULD BE the least crazy document in the stack and they just killed me.

Let me see if I can even explain this for the nonlawyers. (I'm sure all the other lawyers who saw this are also deceased.)

You can't sue or serve process on the Electoral College because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. IT DOES NOT EXIST.

I know that might sound surprising given how much time we've spent talking about the Electoral College, but that's the literal truth. The Electoral College isn't actually a thing that exists. It's a process. This is like being hit by a hurricane and trying to sue "the wind."

The thing we *call* the Electoral College is the bundle of 50 separate state processes for appointing electors, and the processes by which they cast their votes. It's not a body. It's not an institution. IT IS NOT A THING THAT YOU CAN SUE.

At all.

Ever.

Orly Taitz tried to sue the Electoral College once, but to be fair I think they may have gotten farther this time - I'm not sure she managed to even get them to issue a summons.

I'm going to take a second and go get a drink.

OK. Stiff double has been poured. I've skimmed the rest of the summonses.

Lots of state officials being sued only in their official capacities, because apparently defenders of the Constitution aren't always great at defending the Eleventh Amendment.

Next, let's look at the relief they're seeking to get via a preliminary injunction. I'd usually jump to the end of a filing for that, but there's a proposed order so Iet's look at that.

And I'm dead again.

This is --I'm---I I can't - I can't even. I don't know where...

They...

I think they are trying to get a United States District Court to enjoin the Vice President and the Congress from carrying out a duty that is mandatory under the Constitution and what fresh hell is this even?

For clarity for anyone who looked at the format on that and panicked - that's not an actual court order; it's a proposed order that's filed as a courtesy.

You know what, that kills any chance that I'm going to start with the motion for preliminary injunction, let's start with the complaint. That's going to be less crazy; it's just trying to sue a bunch of unsuable entities.

I'm going to skip the page with the addresses of the plaintiffs, many of whom may, despite the evidence provided by this suit, be normal humans.

And does anyone know what Brian Kemp's "original capacity" is? Are we talking cranial? Moral? Ethical? (Is there a measure small enough?)

When lawyers-in-potential are taught to write, they're taught that section headings should be a working part of the document. Preferably, they should help orient the reader to the argument.

This does the opposite. It disoriented me.

I seriously have no clue what's coming next.

HUH? Wut? Wait where what the hell what?

I've read the Constitution from start to finish, end to end, and - during one memorable study group session - upside down because I was too tired to walk around the table. I have never ever seen this alleged constitutional right.

Hamilton!

I don't know why we're reading about Hamilton writing about cabals right now, but OK, this is still 2020.

Are they...no. They can't be. It's not possi...

Y'all, is it remotely possible that these absolute ballsacks are NOT trying to sue Congress, the Electoral College, and several states for not having legislatures in session.

I'd love to live in a world where these weapons-grade muppets aren't doing that.

But I don't, do I?

I'm just dead here. Just so deceased. I'm out of even.

They are apparently very lawsuit, much federal angry.

Why? Because state legislatures aren't in session.

This may come as a surprise to anyone who has not heard of federalism, but it's maybe just a tiny bit unlikely that federal courts can tell state legislatures when to meet.

"This wholesale delegation of legislative authority" that is known as "passing laws setting the manner of appointing electors," see generally eg the Constitution.

The Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society has the constitutional literacy of a thrice-concussed hummingbird.

- wait a minute.

I missed something. A? B? These are *argument* headings but this is - allegedly - a complaint. It's supposed to have numbered paragraphs so that the defense can file a rational answer. To the extent, of course, that any rational answer beyond WTF is possible.

OK, so this is all of section B and I've got no response because it's simply not possible to tell what the hell is going on with this at this point. I literally have no idea where this is going - but it's clearly a sideways kind of direction. Or downward.

400 million is exceeded by *checks notes* 400 million?

Oh, this isn't a loaded phrase at all, Thomas More - "voter turnout of certain demographics" fucking racist dingleberries that you are.

Ah. So the argument is that it's unconstitutional for one county to take private funds to help people vote if neighboring counties don't also do so. Riiiiiight.

I'm going to start skipping some of the racist dogwhistlehorns and other bullshit and just hitting high points - still more than 100 pages of this nonsense ahead.

But I do have to say that if you think it's bad to "dramatically expand voter and community education and outreach, particularly to historically disenfranchised residence," I'd kindly suggest that you fuck off somewhere and think about life choices for a bit.

"Urban areas" is also, of course, not a dogwhistle. Really.

Also, while it's easy to miss words, you really shouldn't forget to type the words that are, y'know, the key word that gives the entire sentence its meaning.

NO. No. No. Local official do not "determine the ballots to be received." You know who does? The duckfucking Post Office, that's who - but I'll bet that we've got no complaints about them, do we, "Amistad"?

Oh, and they're sadz because the cosplaying treasonweasels couldn't cast their fake votes in one of the real capitols, so they're making a literal federal case out of this, too.

Pro Tip:

If you're a public official and you don't want to be investigated for public corruption, a good starting point would be not getting caught drinking $500 bottles of Dom Perignon at the hotel the President owns after he calls you in to meet about upending an election.

Almost accidentally left the "l" out of "public" on that last tweet. And almost intentionally decided to let the error stand.

FFS - 14 pages in any were still on "here's why we're filing this complaint" instead of bringing up the things that the court actually cares about?

They are arguing that laws passed over 130 years ago that have been used in every election since - laws that have been used in more than half of all our Presidential elections - are unconstitutional.

That's -- a novel approach. As is doing so 7 BLEEDING WEEKS AFTER THE ELECTION.

By the way - they've got no standing to bring this claim, the right to "state legislative post-election certification" is a delusion they concocted possibly (but not necessarily plausibly) while not high on the brown acid, and many other reasons for dismissal.

Actually, credit where due, they may manage to hit ALL the reasons you can lose your case under Fed R Civ P 12. Which takes real talent, but they might just have done it.

I mean, does D. DC have personal jurisdiction over the Governor of Arizona?

This is - we're still only 14 pages in - shaping up to be legendary. Three days before Christmas, over a week since the Electoral College met, and they're claiming that every presidential election since 1880 has been constitutionally infirm.

State legislatures that enact laws governing the manner of Presidential elections aren't fulfilling their Article 2 duty; they're "legally acquiesc[ing]" to...something? And was "*legally* acquiesced" *REALLY* the best phrasing?

Also, why are you calling the thing that you keep claiming is mandatory a "prerogative"? Pick one.

I mean, it's likely that any state that wanted to *could* pass a law requiring affirmative legislative approval of the popular vote. But that's a far cry from saying they have to do so.

Why can't we avoid this "crisis" the way we've avoided a constitutional crisis over this exact issue for the last *checks notes* 130 years?

Oh, that's right. I forgot. Cheeto Jeebus lost and that changes everything.

Translation: You're big mad that none of the states that you and your kooky kosplay krew "electors" have taken legislative action so you're going to lie a lot about stuff because nobody cares about Rule 11.

This is the lamest attempt at dodging mootness that I've ever seen.

The DC Code provision in question relates to a rarely-used procedural device known as "quo warranto." I'm not going to dig into what that is, but I will say that I'm nearly certain that they're not suing the right parties for that cause, so we may indeed have hit all of 12(b).

Literally most of the Defendants neither reside nor are located in DC. And of the 3 that do, 1 doesn't actually exist.

Also - 14 fekking pages in and we're only NOW at numbered paragraphs you people need to stop crapticing law. Shitsake.

Section on standing isn't the worst idea given that these assclowns very obviously lack any cognizable argument for standing. But citing Lujan v Defenders is a -- a-- whelp, it's a *choice* I guess.

(Seriously, Lujan will be cited as a basis for dismissing for lack of standing.)

Oh, so many issues in so few words.
1: That's a hell of a claim.
2: Are they claiming that the legislature has to certify every individual vote please say no someone.
3: What required post-election certification?
4: "Abscence such certification"?

5: There are no states that do this, so there are many many missing defendants.
6: "Disenfranchisement" is an interesting word when you're real complaint is "they counted 'urban' votes and my candidate lost."

I could keep going, but why.

Siri, write me a sentence that is absolutely, 100% guaranteed to get my complaint dismissed because the claim alleges a generalized grievance and not an injury in fact.

47% of the population of the country voted in this election; if your injury is shared by 155,507,228 of your fellow citizens it is pretty damn generalized.

YOU ARE SUING STATE OFFICIALS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES ONLY YOU TRANSGALACTITC MUMPTIES HOW THE HELL ARE YOU GETTING AN INJUNCTION?

I mean, yeah, ex parte Young sets out a legal fiction. We all know this. BUT IT'S A REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT LEGAL FICTION YOU NIMRODS.

Ohgawd we're one very tiny step away from fringy flag arguments.

And, yes, I'm very skipping stuff at this point. I don't have time for the merely inane; we need to restrict the focus to the asinine, ludicrous, and plaid.

Wait, are they also claiming that all election laws have to be uniform when the Constitution gives each state the right to select a different manner for picking electors?

Also, how are we getting election irregularities in here now? What are the claims? Are there claims?

What "assurance"? THIS IS A MADE-UP THING YOU JUST MADE UP NOT A THING THAT HAPPENS.

Is this sentence even English?

The social contract can't really be personally at risk. It's a social contract. It's a fundamentally generalized thing, as is your grievance with it.

I'm kind of surprised that they're not citing the "Republican Form of Government" clause, but I'm also getting more, not less, confused about their argument.

To the extent there is one.

Ohmygod - they're going to start ranting about privity and wanting to talk about the person, the being, the settlor and whatever and we're gonna have to taze them.

Also, I think this is still nominally the standing section?

You keep saying this thing that has never existed is "constitutionally required" but I do not think those words mean what you think it means.

They talk and talk and talk and babble and babble and bullshit endlessly on about "state legislative post-election certification" but we're twentyfuckingthree pages into this disordered diatribe and I don't even know what that is yet.

Right. New section.

I'm going to take a quick break. I'm done with my Scotch.

I also just realized that I have both eggnog and Kraken rum in the house, so a mistake may be about to be made.

OK. Kraken released - and it works very well with eggnog - so well it's dangerously easy to drink even at about 1/3 rum.

"Legal background" isn't really a thing in complaints, but this is a tweet with a filing fee so I guess we should maybe let that slide.

It's also a strange label for a lengthy and pointless history lesson.

"Kids, this-piece-of-paper's-got-47-words-37-sentences-58-words-we-wanna-know-the-details-of-the-drugs-you-are-totally-fucking-on-bringing-this-complaint"

There's a step missing here. Still. Again. Still. Eternally.

How do we get from "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" to "the manner the Legislature may direct must include post-election certification of Presidential votes"?

On the one hand, being eviscerated every four years seems bad. And messy. On the other, it's not quite as bad as the hand Prometheus got dealt.

It's like they genuinely believe they can make "legislative post-election certifications" a thing if they just use the phrase enough times.

Also, arguing that state legislatures lack authority to specify the manner of appointing electors strikes me as a very non-textualist position, to say the least. To say the most, it strikes me as totally duckfucking insane.

Oh, good. It's not enough to invent "legislative post-election certification." Now we're inventing an associated doctrine to make this unicorn of an argument non-delegable.

Ohfuckingmotherfuck -

They're arguing that state constitutions that don't conform with their addled ravings are also unconstitutional. We're one step away from them claiming that the constitution is uncons---

No, they did do that already, I think.

FML.

No state's "electors votes" have been "so certified." None.

The theory of the suit is becoming more clear, however. For a beer-goggles definition of "clear' anyway. They're suing the Defendants "except state legislatures" because #reasons and they're suing the state legislators to get them to appoint electors who can't vote this year.

The plaintiffs can also claim that Pence acts unconstitutionally because he's three geckos standing on each other's shoulders trying to pass as human. It will work as well and be more consistent with observed reality.

The entire argument that "post-whatever whoever certification" is required is still based entirely on the authority of quod ego sic dico.

Seriously, at some point they're going to run out of ways to make this claim and be forced to give an actual basis for it, right?

Stop fucking claiming this shit you assholes are lawyers for shitsake I've been reading for hours and thirty damn pages and you still haven't given a fucking argument already what the fuck?

The delay between the last tweet and this one was because I was trying to figure out how many Presidential post-election court proceedings this very set of skidmarks on the underwear of my profession filed this election.

I kept losing count. So we'll go with "lots."

Show some pride in your work. "Approximately thirty post-election lawsuits, including manyfuckingones filed by us, were filed."

What this basically comes down to is this:
"Judge, we kept getting our goohuloog heads kicked in by the courts so could you invent a new process that we're hopeful will be the "extra-easy" mode we think this game needs?"

Well, yes. The electors this year, as in every election for more than a flipping century, did not receive the made-up thing that you made-up and want to be not-made-up. This is true.

OK, I'm going to keep scrolling until I get to something - anything - that isn't "Judge, we Calvinballed the election rules last week and nobody is playing by our new ones."

Yup. This is 100% "the courts threw us out on our sorry asses because our cases had no basis in law, fact, or this universe and we want new courts that will let us play."

WHATHTESHIT!!!!

You just wasted precious minutes of my life that I will never ever recover talking about how it's unconstitutional for courts to hear this and legislatures should instead so why are you even talking about this you asshats?

I know it's too much to expect you lobotomized flounders at Thomas More to hold a thought throughout a single pleading, but you can't even manage 2 pages?

Also, "a short and plain statement of the claim" is a requirement not an option.

Nooooooooooooo.

Why are you wasting the court's time with things you literally just said the court cannot constitutionally address? Why? Really, just tell us why.

The Kranken remain the least coherent cases of this cycle. But this is *TOTALLY* the dumbest.

And it's closing in on the least coherent award.

Fukit. Nope. This is now the least coherent. Because apparently we're going to use state-by-state arguments already rejected by all the courts and which this very case argues cannot be considered by this court to try to argue that this court should do something.

New rule:

If you use the phrase "to wit" you have none.

This is the doood who has his favorite pet mail trailer that he just leaves places, right, and FML this keeps getting dumber how is this even possible.

Jesus H Tapdancing Christ on a Crutch these people are on all of the fucking crack.

ohmygod its a cell phone picture of a computer screen this isnt real.

Oh, good. Another photo, this one from an "expert declaration" - but why in the name of all that is holy, unholy, or mundane is there an "expert declaration" when you LITERALLY FUCKING TOLD THE FUCKING COURT THAT IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO REACH THE MERITS???????

And what is this even - and can ANYONE read it?

I mean, OK, mea culpa, I use lots and lots of screenshots. But I'm posting my tweets on twitter; I don't pay a filing fee.

OK. My eyes are glazing over as I scroll past more and more of the Pennsylvania allegations that the Thomas More Society is making in a case where the Thomas More Society claims that only state legislatures can constitutionally hear such complaints. Several pages worth.

I'm also done with the eggnog, but, alas, it's a weeknight.

No. Not Braynard. Anything but Braynard.

I---

It
Keeps
Getting
Dumber
and dumber and dumber help.

THESE ARE DIFFERENT KINDS OF ERRORS THEY HAVE NOTHING - CLEARLY NOTHING, OBVIOUSLY NOTHING - TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

Saying that this Orange error rate exceeds the allowable Kumquat error rate is just -- what the hell?

Oh, good. A new state. Just what I wanted for Christmas.

This is more of the same shit that they claim the court can't constitutionally do a damn thing about, so I'm going to skip over even the asinine and restrict comments to ludicrous or worse.

Also, I'm fed the hell up with this "based on [state] voters' allegations" nonsense. These aren't factual allegations, it's pure fucking legal argument, stop it you're just pissing everyone off at this point.

Credit where due, you fukkas could offer postgraduate master classes in pissing people off, I'll give you that.

It's like these people are permanently broken records. Doesn't matter how many times the courts tell them to get fucked sideways, they're wrong as shit about state law, they have a rock-solid misplaced faith in their intelligence.

BASED ON GEORGIA VOTERS' ALLEGATIONS a court case that I can totally look up happened WHY are you doing this to me it hurts.

OFFS. This isn't enough to show who benefitted more. And that's irrelevant to the claims in any event - you geniuses are claiming that ALL voters are equally injured or did you forget that in your partisan frenzy?

And we've got some more greatest hits nonsense crammed in - massive difference in absentee rejections, Hillary Clinton, Zuckerberg, yadda yadda FML yadda yadda.

Is it Festivus yet, because I've got grievances to air and suggestions for what they can do with the pole.

Michigan is up next. Unless they really ramped up the stupid, I'll catch you in (probably) Wisconsin in a few minutes.

Credit where due, at least this particular set of comedians knows what state the TCF Center is in.

"Counsel, why didn't you bring these claims in Michigan state courts"
"We did, Your Honor"
"And?"
"They said something that I think had the word Pogue but I don't think it involved Fairytale of New York and evicted us from the state."
"I don't get paid enough to deal with you."

These pictures keep getting better and better.

And better - I love the shadow of the cell phone in this one.

Ohgod. They're trying to pass baseballcrank off as an "expert witness" in this case where they said all this stuff can't constitutionally be considered by the court.

No - "this dispute" is the one about "post-certification election legislaoring" or whatever, remember? Not about things that happened in the states. For crying out loud, if I can keep your stupid story straight, why the hell can't you?

Oh not this.

If you have an issue with the Antrim error rate, take it up with the people who messed up the thing.

On Wisconsin! Hopefully we can get through this without having to stop, and hopefully there's not much left after this except the Land-O-Sheriff-Joe.

Apparently, having more drop boxes per square mile in the parts of Wisconsin where humans outnumber cows violates the Constitution. Who knew?

Do you have to be nuts to drive a truck for USPS, or is that an optional extra?

Finally isn't the word to use on page 104 of 116. Trust me on this.

Deceased. Again.

And again.

Also:
Of COURSE Maricopa gets more drop boxes and early voting centers. There are PEOPLE there. Cacti can't vote. Neither can rattlesnakes. You don't need a lot of drop boxes in the Grand Canyon or Petrified Forest or Meteor Crater.

This isn't rocket surgery.

And none of the errors you are complaining about are the errors that the rate given applies to you intergalactic dunderheads. One rate is for purely machine errors and you're talking about human mistakes you nimrods.

Good lord it's nearly 11 this is almost done and I'm going to have to at least look at the motion for preliminary injunction just to see if there is a LEGAL ARGUMENT for the whole made up post-election cert thingy.

Also, I don't think "Article II" is a stand-alone cause of action. But what the hell, it's not like you really need one of those to complain when you get booted out of the courthouse at Mach 3 anyway.

You know what, though - if the court tells them they can have post-election legislative certification for elections starting in 20020, I'm not sure I'd complain.

And I know I've said this, but if it's a prerogative it's not mandatory.

Lots more stuff here - all pure bullshit but also purely legal argument about the states being somehow preempted from determining the manner of selecting electors by the thing in the US Constitution that says they get to select the manner of selecting electors.

And there is simply no way that a federal court - any federal court - can enjoin the Legislative Branch from carrying out a mandatory duty set out in the Constitution.

WHAT THE EVERLOVING HOLY FUCK? NO DAMN STATE DOES THIS THING YOU HAVE MADE UP.

How can it possibly - possibly - conceivably - be an equal protection issue if every state is blowing off the totally made up constitutional obligation you have invented out of totally thin air? HOW?

FFS, *only* making those states do that would potentially CREATE an equal protection problem. You dunderheads.

AS THEY DO IN WHAT OTHER STATES? The state of Confusion? The state of Denial? The state of Delusion? The state of New You Definitely Smoking Something?

WHAT OTHER CITIZENS OHMYGOD NOW YOURE JUST MAKING UP THAT THERE ARE PLACES THAT DO THIS THING YOU INVENTED WHAT FRESH HELL AM I IN NOW?

Lots more about "legislative post-election certification." Here's the Google results for that phrase. Two are this twitter thread; one is this complaint; and one is the brief that fuckhead lawyer submitted advocating for SCOTUS to take a case he said here was correctly declined.

OHmygod ---

That's it? Just these 3 claims?

No.
No. No. No. nononononono.

You didn't just do that to me.

I ---

Oh. My. God.

Everything from page 34 to 109 was a factual allegation about the election. That's 75 pages. 75 damn pages of factual allegations THAT HAVE NOT ONE DAMN THING, NOT ONE BLOODY DAMN THING TO DO WITH THE CLAIMS. ZEFUCKINGRO.

W H A T are they smoking? I need to know what to avoid.

The clerk that has to read this is gonna lose their shit in technicolor. That's a certainty. Losing of all the shit in Imax with full THX sound is a very very real possibility.

Just - WOW.

75 totally irrelevant pages of meaningless factual allegations in a case brought on an emergency basis just before Christmas is --

I don't have words.

OK.Let's see what they're requesting. Usually you put the more reasonable requests up front and the longshots toward the end, but I see they're starting by requesting that several thousand pages of long-settled statutes, federal and in all 50 states, be declared unconstitutional.

Oh, maybe those were the reasonable requests.

Also, I think I've found a nice, peaceful, gentle plane of being on the far side of outrage.

ARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

YOU DIDN'T BRING A CLAIM UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT HOW ARE YOU REQUESTING AN AWARD OF FEES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT????????

"Judge, I've got the file done on the Electoral College case."
"Thanks - enjoy the holidays."
"Thanks, Judge. Happy Holidays."
"Hang on --"
"Yes, Judge?"
"Why is the top a memo on whether a swirly can be 'just and proper relief'?"
"Trust me. It'll help."

Skimming the motion for preliminary injunction very quickly, I find absolutely no attempt to explain why the mystical "post-election certification" is required. And no state that does this is identified.

Overall:
This is the new leader for dumbest post-election litigation. It's all-but-guaranteed to piss off every lawyer who has to read it, all of the judges, and it's objectively worse than used toilet paper.

This is very much an "I award you zero points" scenario. At least the factual allegations in the Krakenoid nonsense had some connection, however tenuous, with the causes of action. This has 75 pages of conspiracist nonsense and terrible math that has nothing to do with the case.

I can't believe I just did that to myself.

But I couldn't look away.

/fin