If Dan T had the privilege of penning the Supreme Court’s response to the Texas AG’s recent lawsuit, here’s what it would say:
The Constitution grants states authority to set their own election rules–not each other’s. Plaintiff has chosen to sue Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania–all swing states that voted against Plaintiff’s preferred candidate–but ignore dozens of other states which made similar accommodations for Covid-19, which has killed a quarter million Americans. That selective outrage creates a searing impression that the true purpose of the lawsuit is to reverse the outcome of the election, and concern over the integrity of the election is an embarrassingly skimpy fig leaf. This case insults the American judicial system and injures the American electoral system. Plaintiff’s request is denied; do not darken our doorstep with this nonsense again.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if SCOTUS is as devastatingly terse as it was in the Pennsylvania case. The opinion reads, in its entirety: “The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.”
Science uses predictions as a means to test the accuracy of models. My model says the Trumpy complaints about widespread election fraud are without merit. My prediction from that model is that SCOTUS will not reverse the results of the election.
What’s your model, and what’s your prediction?