Read on Twitter
I once read a case where the defendant signed a contract “Mickey Mouse” and then argued he hadn’t signed it. To be clear, he agreed he had signed the document. Just, that because he’d used the wrong name, he won. 1/
But he lost, because law doesn’t really work like that. Although it’s reputation among laymen might be that law is technicalities and tricks, it’s really not. Procedure, yes. But not “one small trick” to win sorts of things. /2
Anyway, I spent some time last night looking through the last ditch Trump world theories. Much of it is nuts, yes. And it will fail for that reason. But also almost all of it is “one small trick” to win variety stuff. “If you read this one thing in a way no one else does…” /3
“Then the courts have no choice but to make us win!”
A good example is the theory that if you sue Pence, and he doesn’t fight it, you can make a federal judge give Pence the power to overturn the election.
But no, it’s not like that at all. Courts just don’t act that way. /4
A good example is the theory that if you sue Pence, and he doesn’t fight it, you can make a federal judge give Pence the power to overturn the election.
But no, it’s not like that at all. Courts just don’t act that way. /4
Law is a lot more resistant to these “tricks” style of litigation than laypeople expect.
Yes, I see that @JustinLawGuy has already mentioned the latest ACA challenge, which really is this sort of thing. Fair enough. But that will fail, even if it got further than you’d expect.
Yes, I see that @JustinLawGuy has already mentioned the latest ACA challenge, which really is this sort of thing. Fair enough. But that will fail, even if it got further than you’d expect.
