You know what?

I *will* without a doubt regret this.

But I'm going to watch Mike Pence read out the last returns before I go to sleep.

Also.

FUCK YEAH, AMERICA!!!!
That was not sarcasm. Hell, I've got Lee damn Greenwood running through my head right now.
We had a no-kidding attempted coup today. One of the two guys who would have benefitted from that coup is standing in the chamber of the House - which was occupied by seditionists hours ago - signing off on his electoral defeat.
I never, in a thousand years, thought I would say this.

But I say thee ye, Michael Pence.
And I am crying again.
I'm in tears. West Virginia gives its votes to Trump and Pence and tears are streaming down my face as Wisconsin is called.
OK, I don't care who this motherfucker is who is trying to spoil shit with a house objection to Wisconsin but no Senator backed him up and Pence just shut him down.
Are there any objections to Wyoming?

There are none.

This is the final state.
The Tellers from the Senate and the House report the following:

"Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris will be the President and Vice President according to the ballots given to us."
Mike Pence reports that Joseph Biden has received 306 votes. Donald Trump has received 232 votes.
Mike Pence, standing in a building that was occupied by people attempting to use violence to compel our nation to accept him as the Vice President for another four years, announces that Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris will take office on January 20, 2021.
"The purpose of the Joint Session having concluded...the Chair declares the joint session dissolved."

This is America. Still.

More from Mike Dunford

Election Litigation Thread - Georgia:
OK, so since my attempt to sit back while Akiva does all the work of going through the latest proof that not only the pro se have fools for lawyers has backfired, let's take a stroll through the motion for injunctive relief.


At the start, I'd note that the motion does not appear to be going anywhere fast - despite the request that they made over 80 hours ago to have the motion heard within 48 hours.

The most recent docket entries are all routine start-of-case stuff.


Why isn't it going anywhere quickly? Allow me to direct your attention to something that my learned colleague Mr. Cohen said


Now I'm not a litigator, but if I had an emergency thing that absolutely had to be heard over a holiday weekend, I'd start by reading the relevant part of the local rules for the specific court in which I am filing my case.

In this case, this bit, in particular, seems relevant:


My next step, if I had any uncertainty at all, would be to find and use the court's after-hours emergency contact info. I might have to work some to find it, but it'll be there. Emergencies happen; there are procedures for them.

And then I'd do exactly what they tell me to do.
OK. The Teams meeting that I unsuccessfully evaded (and which was actually a lot of fun and I'm really genuinely happy I was reminded to attend) is over, so let's take another swing at looking at the latest filings from in re Gondor.


As far as I can tell from the docket, this is the FOURTH attempt in a week to get a TRO; the question the judge will ask if they ever figure out how to get the judge's attention will be "couldn't you have served by now;" and this whole thing is a

The memorandum in support of this one is 9 pages, and should go pretty quick.

But they still haven't figured out widow/orphan issues.

https://t.co/l7EDatDudy


It appears that the opening of this particular filing is going to proceed on the theme of "we are big mad at @SollenbergerRC" which is totally something relevant when you are asking a District Court to temporarily annihilate the US Government on an ex parte basis.


Also, if they didn't want their case to be known as "in re Gondor" they really shouldn't have gone with the (non-literary) "Gondor has no king" quote.
Yes, I have seen the thing about Texas suing other states over the election. Yes, the US Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between states.

No, this is not a thing that will change the election. At all.

If this is real - and I do emphasize the if - it is posturing by the elected Republican "leadership" of Texas in an attempt to pander to a base that has degraded from merely deplorable to utterly despicable.

Apparently, it is real. For a given definition of real, anyway. As Steve notes, the Texas Solicitor General - that's the lawyer who is supposed to represent the state in cases like this - has noped out and the AG is counsel of


Although - again - I'm curious as to the source. I'm seeing no press release on the Texas AG's site; I'm wondering if this might not be a document released by whoever the "special counsel" to the AG is - strange situation.

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court is Supremely Unlikely to take this case - their jurisdiction is exclusive, but it's also discretionary.

Meaning, for nonlawyers:
SCOTUS is the only place where one state can sue another, but SCOTUS can and often does decline to take the case.

More from For later read

Excited we finally have a draft of this paper, which attempts to provide a 'unifying theory' of the long economic divergence between the Middle East & Western Europe

As we see it, there are 3 recent theories that hit on important aspects of the divergence...

1/


One set of theories focus on the legitimating power of Islam (Rubin, @prof_ahmetkuru, Platteau). This gave religious clerics greater power, which pulled political resources away form those encouraging economic development

But these theories leave some questions unanswered...
2/

Religious legitimacy is only effective if people
care what religious authorities dictate. Given the economic consequences, why do people remain religious, and thereby render religious legitimacy effective? Is religiosity a cause or a consequence of institutional arrangements?

3/

Another set of theories focus on the religious proscriptions of Islam, particular those associated with Islamic law (@timurkuran). These laws were appropriate for the setting they formed but had unforeseeable consequences and failed to change as economic circumstances changed

4/

There are unaddressed questions here, too

Muslim rulers must have understood that Islamic law carried proscriptions that hampered economic development. Why, then, did they continue to use Islamic institutions (like courts) that promoted inefficiencies?

5/

You May Also Like