the 2000 case that disputed the election then. three justices were in support of the theory then. we know from cases that came up in 2020 on the emergency appeals to the supreme court that there are three justices now who seem to be attracted to the theory. that s gorsuch, thomas and alito. i think we can safely say that the three democratic appointed justices are going to oppose this theory. so i m going to be watching tomorrow to see what justices cavanaugh and barrett as well as chief justice roberts think. they re the ones who are going to be looking at whether texts in history support this idea, and also, this is what i put forward in my brief, the kind of administrative concerns that come up when you essentially create conditions that lead to the doubling of the amount of election litigation in the courts, and putting the supreme court in the hot seat all the time deciding issues while elections are pending. that s not a comfortable position for the court. it is exactly, though
by what i heard from justices cavanaugh and barrettvana from those arguments becauseba they both seemed to get it. s gt cavanough i liked his language where he said the court should remain strictly impartial here just scrupulously neutral and not say we re going toy be pro-choice, we re not going be pro-life. we re just going to say let the people decide these issues. justice barrett was talking about, you know, the abilityty give their child up for adoption, how this really shows how far we ve come in our country. we can say whereho they were going to switch. yeah, well, i would i would hope that all the justices would come out and unequivocally condemn these these terroristic acts on the part of activists and say this will not stand and they need to find this leaker or leakers, i should say, out of the out of the supreme court. this can t be thishis difficultd it really wants to be found out. to seewad mike, great you both.nt to thank you . and the left wants youve to avet your eyes