I've been trying to think that through - not just legally, but judicially.

The more thinking I do the less serious - and more ludicrous - the entire thing looks. And the more obvious it becomes that this is the proposal of deeply unwell individuals who are not thinking clearly.

On the legal side, I read through the list of emergency powers - the whole list - that was assembled by the Brennan Center. Nothing on that list fits. Nothing comes even close.

https://t.co/Po8mcrENnz
It seems extraordinarily unlikely that any executive order along the lines of what has been discussed would be legal. In this case, it can be taken as a given that one or more targeted jurisdictions would dash right off to the courthouse.
Standing would not, it should go without saying, be likely to be an issue. I doubt redressability would either. I think it's very likely that restraining orders and injunctions would be swiftly issued.
That's the legal side, to the extent it's possible to speculate on that at all at this point. Basically, there's no readily apparent legal basis for such a thing, so it probably wouldn't be legal.

That's the easy part. Now for the nuttier side - the logistics.
Let's run through the 5 W's and the H.

1: Who? Who does the seizing. Where do the needed people come from? This is not a small undertaking. Even if we're just talking Dominion, that's tens of thousands of machines spread out over hundreds of jurisdictions.
Who takes on that job? The US Marshals are not a large organization. The nuts already think the FBI is part of the Deep State. The armed forces can't easily be used for such tasks, given constitutional restrictions on domestic use (and are unwilling to follow unlawful orders).
2: What? In addition to the obvious "wait wut," there's also the "what gets seized" question. As I said, there are literally tens of thousands of machines out there.
3: When? This is the week before Christmas - it is much harder than normal to get anything done. That's not a small matter. And by the time the holidays are done, there are a very small number of days left before Congress certifies the EC results.
4: Why? This is a question that judges WILL ask - and they'll ask this question whether this is happening under an Executive Order or as a special counsel (I'll get to that issue at the end.)
You can rest assured that the bigger and less precedented the demand, the more actual evidence courts are going to want to see.
5: Where? (Yeah, I got that out of order.)

Where are they going to put everything, for starters. You're talking about warehouses worth of electronics, all of which needs to be stored carefully and safely. Where are they going to do - whatever it is they're going to do?
6: How?
6a: How are they going to pay for this? From what money?
6b: How are they actually going to figure out the answers to the other 5 questions when they're running with Lin, Sidney, MyPillow and Overstock - when this is too nuts for even Rudy?
That's the EO take. The "make Sidney Powell a special counsel" is a bit trickier. To be honest, that might be a thing he can do. He may have to fire his way down the Department of Justice a bit until he finds someone willing, and that might take a bit, but it could happen.
But even there, the logistical issues all remain. And the legal ones don't evaporate. Even the most rubber-stampy of magistrates is likely to hesitate before OKing a massive grab of voting machines, and, again, affected jurisdictions will have legal recourse to challenge things.
But let's say that it happens. Now we're at the underpants gnomes bit.
1: Make Sidney Powell a special counsel.
2: ????
3: Trump stays President.
Seriously, what goes in step 2? What's the grand plan?

And the answer is, of course, that there isn't one. They really aren't thinking things through. There's nothing I can see that remotely plausibly connects those two steps.
What this whole thing produces is a more chaotic and unhinged end to our most chaotic and unhinged Presidency, but that's all I can see coming out of this.

More from Mike Dunford

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.
Election Litigation Update: DC - the "let's sue the Electoral College" case.

This is a bit surprising, given that as of last time I checked nobody had been served and no appearance had been entered. I suspect it's an effort to make sure the case isn't "pending" on the 6th.


And, sure enough, still no proof of service on ANY defendant, still no appearance from defense counsel. And this is denying the motion for preliminary injunction but does NOT dismiss the case - which is potentially ominous for plaintiff's counsel.


This isn't a "happy judge" kind of first paragraph. Not even a little bit. Nope.


Y'all, this isn't even directed within a few hundred miles of my direction and I sill just instinctively checked to make sure that there's room for me to hide under my desk if I have to - this is a very not happy, very federal, very judge tone.


Also - the judge just outright said there's a bunch of reasons for dismissal. And not in "might be" terms. In definite fact ones. But the case isn't dismissed yet.

If I was plaintiffs counsel, I'd definitely be clearing under my desk right now, and possibly also my underwear.
THREAD:
Good afternoon, followers of frivolous election litigation. There's a last-minute entry in the competition for dumbest pre-inauguration lawsuit - a totally loony effort to apparently leave the entire USA without a government.

We'll start with the complaint in a minute.

But first, I want to give you a quick explanation for why I'm going to keep talking about these cases even after the inauguration.

They're part of an ongoing effort - one that's not well-coordinated but is widespread - to discredit our fundamental system of government.

It's a direct descendent, in more ways than one, of birtherism. And here's the thing about birtherism. It might have been a joke to a lot of people, but it was extremely pernicious. It obviously validated the racist "not good enough to be President" crowd. But that wasn't all.

Don't get me wrong, that was bad enough. Validating racism helped put the kind of shitbird who would tweet this from an official government account into power. But it didn't stop


(Also, if you agree with Pompeo about multiculturalism - the legendary melting pot - not being what this country is all about, you need to stop following me now. And maybe go somewhere and think about your life choices and what made you such a tool.)

More from Society

Imagine if Christians actually had to live according to their Bibles.


Imagine if Christians actually sacrificed themselves for the good of those they considered their enemies, with no thought of any recompense or reward, but only to honor the essential humanity of all people.

Imagine if Christians sold all their possessions and gave it to the poor.

Imagine if they relentlessly stood up for the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner.

Imagine if they worshipped a God whose response to political power was to reject it.

Or cancelled all debt owed them?

Imagine if the primary orientation of Christians was what others needed, not what they deserved.

Imagine Christians with no interest in protecting what they had.

Imagine Christians who made room for other beliefs, and honored the truths they found there.

Imagine Christians who saved their forgiveness and mercy for others, rather than saving it for themselves.

Whose empathy went first to the abused, not the abuser.

Who didn't see tax as theft; who didn't need to control distribution of public good to the deserving.

You May Also Like