This is an excellent question, and it's something that I've thought about some over the last couple of months.

Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.

Texas - WTF is this even - a very short reassurance thread:

1: The Texas "lawusit" against four other "battleground" states in the United States Supreme Court is legally stupid.* It is so legally stupid that I was reluctant to believe that even Ken Paxton would file it.

*My patience level is not ginormous today. Please don't try to explain to me why you think it isn't stupid for whatever other reasons because I'll be making liberal use of the airlock. Thx.

2: Yes, one state can sue another at the US Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court gets to decide whether to take the case. One factor that they will **undoubtedly** look at is the factor of "injury."

Texas is claiming two things. First, that the states have a special interest in who becomes Vice President because of the tiebreaker. Second, that their electors are injured if their votes are "diluted" by electors from states that, in Texas's view, didn't obey their own law.

There is very little argument presented for "injury." Even less - barely a paragraph - was presented for how the defendant states caused that injury.

For lawyers, this is a signal that this is a performance of politics by "litigation" and not a serious effort.

Election Litigation Update - Gohmert.

Reply brief is in. Let's have a look. They are, mercifully, underlength. They had 50 pages available, the PDF is 43 and some of that is cover page, signatures,

Interesting table of contents. Looks like they're packing a lot in, until you realize that much of the material that's important - like their response to the "you sued the wrong person" material and "injury in fact" take up very little space.

Looks like they decided to skip the table of authorities. Presumably GoogleDocWord ate it too bad for them to fix. This will certainly further endear them to the judge.

This is going to be interesting - leading off a reply brief with a "here's what our cause is about" is certainly a strategy. It's even a bold strategy.

Shall we dig deeper, Cotton?

"We live in a democratic republic in which the Vice President, who will more often than not be a candidate in the election, has the sole and unchallengeable power to decide who wins the election" is a hellofa take.

Good morning, electoral lunacy followers. Welcome to what I suspect will be the 2020 equivalent of the Orly Taitz litigation: Sidney Powell Sues Everoyen For LAL Of Teh ThInGs

This is the first of what will (hopefully) be a limited number of #Kraken-related threads.

That said, I doubt the number will be limited. I think Sidney Powell is the Orly Taitz of the Biden Administration.

And I doubt I've acquired enough maturity since my younger birther-watching days to ignore these. So, yes, at least for cases with public dockets, I'm here.

We've got two filings so far - a Michigan one (King v Whitmer) that has been filed, and a Georgia one (Pearson v Kemp) that cannot presently be located on PACER.

This may be because there are parallel Quorts not in the system but maybe it just didn't get filed.

Here's how I'm going to deal with that - I'll start livetweeting King (the filed one) in a little bit, after I do some turkey prep. I'll do that in this thread, but probably even slower and more interrupted than usual - so you might just want to bookmark and come back later.

Tonight, if there's interest, I might be both willing and able to stream a read of the (maybe unfiled) GA case on Twitch tonight.

CAPITOL RIOT QUESTIONS FOR SPEAKER PELOSI: There is no group in America more interested in the safety and security of the Capitol than members of Congress. To that end, members have asked @SpeakerPelosi to answer these basic questions:

1/ What was your role in authorizing or denying National Guard support before and after Jan. 6?

2/ Reps. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and James Comer R-Ky., on Feb. 15 asked you five pointed questions about your role in Jan. 6 and your preservation and compliance with document requests. Will you answer them?

3/ After the 2011 shooting of now-former Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., what changed with regard to security?

4/ After the shooting of Republican House Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., were any changes made to security?

The crisis in the NHS is overwhelming this week. It has reminded me of conversations I had with my late father on how to manage within the state sector. I think they're worth sharing.

My father worked for the nationalised electricity industry from the late 1940s to late 1980s. He spent much of that time as a fairly senior engineer. He was committed to what he did. He believed electricity supply was a human right. And he sought to delver it.

He left the industry and retired when he realised that privatisation challenged what the believed in. The priority was no longer supply. It was, instead, profit. He had a clear example of the difference this made. It was about emergency management.

In his day the state electricity boards ensured that they had all the capacity they needed to manage emergencies to keep supply going as well as possible, come what may. It meant there was excess capacity. But it wasn't wasted - maintenance and training was done instead.

Privatisation saw that excess as waste, and it went. It was assumed contracts could buy in support when needed. My father believed that was dangerous - because when demand was strongest the most inexperienced people would be put to work on the job.

1) Where we are: This is much, much bigger than a fraudulent election (it was) or rampant gubment tyrannical China Virus abuse (it is).

2) What we are facing has been building for a good 30 years.

3) I date it back to the GOP failure to defeat Clinton in the gubment shutdown.

4) If you went to public school, that would be the 1995 budget battle.

5) The brand new GOP Congress, with plenty of public support, failed to rein in a Clinton bloated budget.

6) It wasn't the numbers. Compared to today's deficits & debts, this was pocket change. Rather, this was the first time since the Cold War, which was a legit excuse for constant deficit spending, that Congress failed to do its MAIN constitutional duty--oversee spending.

7) No, this isn't a thread about deficits or debt. At present, I don't think those pose the biggest challenge to us, or even probably one of the top five.

8) Rather, this is about a deadly disease that hit DC & the patient refused to take any medicine for it.

9) The disease was the failure to address the major problems of the day, whether it was deficits, Islamic terrorism, the banking crisis, or trade.

10) Vote fraud & this frankenstein of an election is only the latest SYMPTOM of this much larger disease.

Some thoughts on the recently announced Critical Worker Benefit. Grab a coffee☕️ #ableg cause this is going to be a thread.🧵

First, let me say that I'm glad @jkenney is finally spending the money @JustinTrudeau sent AB. Overall, this is a good thing. But I have...questions
1/9

First, let's temper our praise here... The Fed Govt sent $$ to every province in MAY 2020 earmarked for critical workers.
This money was always destined for Albertans and Kenney sat on it while other provinces got it out to the workers that needed it.

Why do private sector employees have to rely on their employer to apply and distribute Gov't funds? That seems like a...strange...decision.

What if an employer doesn't know or doesn't bother? What if they don't distribute it properly? Is there any recourse? Just...strange. 3/9

Do employers have to deduct tax? CPP? EI?
What if somebody worked 300 hours during the qualifying period but no longer works for the employer?

Are payroll departments expected to set up a new earnings code just for a one time payment in Alberta? 4/9

What counts to the 300 hours worked between Oct-Jan? Vacation? Sick time? Disability? Leaves of absence?

Or is it strictly hours physically at work?

What if your employer reduced hours or even worse, laid people off? You're outta luck when you need it most? Neat! 5/9

1) It looks like Pelosi is covering up the reasons why there was insufficient security at the US Capitol on January 6.

Did Pelosi purposely create the stage, as political theater, for the US Capitol Police to be overrun? House GOP leaders are asking questions that need answers.