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

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
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
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
As someone else noted, Texas has taken "saying the quiet part loud" and made it into an art form.
The argument here is that Texas' claim that other states' election procedures violated the constitution wasn't "ripe" until Texas was harmed by that violation, so Texas had to wait until after the election.
In other words, Texas is EXPRESSLY telling the Supreme Court that "the harm to us wasn't other states 'breaching the contract' by not following the Constitution. We were only harmed when they picked a candidate we don't like"

More from Akiva Cohen

OK, #Squidigation fans, I think we need to talk about the new Wisconsin suit Donald Trump filed - personally - in Federal Court last night. The suit is (as usual) meritless. But it's meritless in new and disturbing ways. This thread will be


Not, I hope, Seth Abramson long. But will see.

I apologize in advance to my wife, who would very much prefer I be billing time (today's a light day, though) and to my assistant, to whom I owe some administrative stuff this will likely keep me from 😃

First, some background. Trump's suit essentially tries to Federalize the Wisconsin Supreme Court complaint his campaign filed, which we discussed here.


If you haven't already, go read that thread. I'm not going to be re-doing the same analysis, and I'm not going to be cross-linking to that discussion as we go. (Sorry, I like you guys, and I see this as public service, but there are limits)

Also, @5DollarFeminist has a good stand-alone thread analyzing the new Federal complaint - it's worth reading as well, though some of the analysis will overlap.
So, quick rundown of the latest #Squidigation decision: It's very thorough; 36 pages of Judge Parker explaining that Powell and her merry band of fuckups lose for every conceivable reason


First: 11th Amendment Immunity. Basically, states (and their officials) have sovereign immunity; you can't sue them in Federal Court except to the extent that they agree to be sued there. Quick thumbnail of the doctrine here


There are only 3 exceptions to this: 1) Congress says "you can sue your state for this"; 2) the state agrees to be sued; 3) Younger, a case that said "you can sue your state if you are just seeking an order saying 'stop violating my rights'"

In other words, if the state passes a law that says "no talking politics in public" you can sue for an order saying "that's unconstitutional and can't be enforced" but not for damages from having your 1A rights violated in the past

I'm sure you can see where this is going: Exceptions 1 and 2 don't apply; Congress didn't say "no sovereign immunity" when it passed 42 USC 1983 (the civil rights statute the plaintiffs sued under) and Michigan hasn't waived it. That leave Younger as the only remaining option

More from Law

You May Also Like

https://t.co/6cRR2B3jBE
Viruses and other pathogens are often studied as stand-alone entities, despite that, in nature, they mostly live in multispecies associations called biofilms—both externally and within the host.

https://t.co/FBfXhUrH5d


Microorganisms in biofilms are enclosed by an extracellular matrix that confers protection and improves survival. Previous studies have shown that viruses can secondarily colonize preexisting biofilms, and viral biofilms have also been described.


...we raise the perspective that CoVs can persistently infect bats due to their association with biofilm structures. This phenomenon potentially provides an optimal environment for nonpathogenic & well-adapted viruses to interact with the host, as well as for viral recombination.


Biofilms can also enhance virion viability in extracellular environments, such as on fomites and in aquatic sediments, allowing viral persistence and dissemination.