Somebody needs to tell a few people that, a general “policy” argument, telling a court that it has no right to decide an issue when the matter falls squarely within the case and controversy requirements of Art 3, and the Constitution specifically provides for jurisdiction of the=

parties; additionally, the court has federal question jurisdiction, is not a good take, and is not persuasive. Next, an argument of disenfranchisement of voters (a) is weak in countering the Bush v Gore equal protection opinion; (b) is beside the point, when the issues is the=
issue is not issues is
constitutional validity of votes cast by state appointed electors, especially in context of serious allegations that State officials unconstitutionally nullified provisions of statutes passed pursuant to the plenary power of the legislatures and thereby threw into chaos by=
dilution or nullification of their own citizens votes. More on this later-I am studying briefs because someone said “their brief is weak.” The person could not have referred to the TX brief. IMO, Tx did a fine, outstanding job in a case of first=
impression. To my followers, don’t despair if some of the amici are not granted leave to file brief. Court is inundated, does not need to be told what it already knows. Also, time is of the essence. More importantly, the formalities are not everything.
BTW: I don’t know how one arrives to a state “sovereignty” argument that was not reserved to states by express dictates of the federal constitution. TX took care of that in anticipation of such argument in its brief, almost as a shrug. TX was right, sovereignty in context=
Of this case is a shrug. TX- great job. Lots of hooks in your brief to hang more than a few hates on. Kudos.
Not to say TX and its coalition of states will prevail. The Court is under enormous competing political pressures here, bu I am saying, no matter how much some may wish it were so, the case TX brings is by no means frivolous. There are a lot of serious allegations that original=
jurisdiction cannot avoid. We are talking 4 states, wherein the conduct of an election is not about the voters casting votes, but about the conduct of state officials in managing state responsibilities to a national election that is at the outermost limit of unseemly.
I have to say it, arguing unclean hands in context is frightfully ironic! Also, really folks, the SCOTUS is not twitter: the list of horribles such as official threats against, and incitement of the public, riot, recited by you folks has already happened, we have had a summer, no
a few years of it all; so soon as Biden was elected, out came @AOC with her threat of public “enemies” list. The Court will not be so easily dissuaded of its authority by recitation of horribles that have happened mainly at your instigation and could just as well be argued the=
other way. Really?! https://t.co/UDgEzI0v16
Opening paragraph my followers. Reading is believing.
Also, “never in all our history” has so and so asked or requested a court to do thus and such is called a case of “first impression.” I think our SCOTUS is up to it.

More from Life

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.

You May Also Like

“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.

Always. No, your company is not an exception.

A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.

Listen to Aditya


And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.

I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.

You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.

Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]