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=