Great article! A place where I'm wholly in support of you is the importance of the right of voters, particularly Republican voters, to know as soon as possible whom they can fruitfully select in their primaries. The result of doing justice here isn't necessarily beneficial for Democrats in the general election!
The Legal Eagle YouTube channel does a pretty good job of laying out the unsexy legal questions in a sexy way, but your blog is covering the actual cases in more detail than I'm seeing elsewhere. Good read.
Thank you James, for even considering to take this on yourself. But it's better that a well-funded organization with good legal expertise is doing the job.
People sometimes want to enter a lawsuit because they have interests in the issue (and they want to protect their interests). Courts allow this under certain circumstances, which mostly boil down to: (1) are your interests *distinct* from the defendant? (2) do you have good reason to believe that the defendant will *do a bad job* protecting your interests?
In this case, IIRC (not rereading the filing now), MNGOP/Hann argued that it had distinct interests from Sec Simon that it needed to protect, which is pretty true.
Oh OK, I guess this suit isn’t “pay me money” but instead is a “stop doing <X>” case. So if MNGOP wants to do <X> they get to join in as a defendant and protect the right to do <X>. It costs them their own legal fees, but they aren’t really at risk of losing the case and also needing to pay all sorts of other money. And that’s because this case isn’t just phrased as “YOU can’t do <X>” but instead as “NOBODY can do <X>”. Hadn’t though about that, makes sense!
I like Akhil Amar a lot (as my footnotes keep giving away), but my first time listening to his podcast was when he interviewed Baude & Paulsen the other week. The episode were titled "The Two Experts on Section Three" (29 August) and "The Two Experts, Part II" (5 Sep). I liked both episodes quite a bit!
I am intending to listen to "An Officer and a President" (12 Sep), about the Blackman-Tillman argument that the President isn't an officer, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
Great article! A place where I'm wholly in support of you is the importance of the right of voters, particularly Republican voters, to know as soon as possible whom they can fruitfully select in their primaries. The result of doing justice here isn't necessarily beneficial for Democrats in the general election!
The Legal Eagle YouTube channel does a pretty good job of laying out the unsexy legal questions in a sexy way, but your blog is covering the actual cases in more detail than I'm seeing elsewhere. Good read.
Thank you!
It's always nice when we find things to agree on. :)
“More than you wanted to know about it” is the EXACT sort of subtitle that get’s a preemptive like before even starting the article!
Plus scrolling down here to the comments section only to see there were SIXTEEN footnotes?! Buckle up fellow readers, we’re in for a treat
Thank you James, for even considering to take this on yourself. But it's better that a well-funded organization with good legal expertise is doing the job.
I concur.
I’m confused… “David Hann and the Minnesota Republican Party subsequently asked to join the suit on Simon’s side, and everyone agreed to allow it”
Don’t people typically try to AVOID getting sued? Why would someone willingly join in as a defendant in a lawsuit?
People sometimes want to enter a lawsuit because they have interests in the issue (and they want to protect their interests). Courts allow this under certain circumstances, which mostly boil down to: (1) are your interests *distinct* from the defendant? (2) do you have good reason to believe that the defendant will *do a bad job* protecting your interests?
In this case, IIRC (not rereading the filing now), MNGOP/Hann argued that it had distinct interests from Sec Simon that it needed to protect, which is pretty true.
P.S. Trump has now formally entered the case.
Oh OK, I guess this suit isn’t “pay me money” but instead is a “stop doing <X>” case. So if MNGOP wants to do <X> they get to join in as a defendant and protect the right to do <X>. It costs them their own legal fees, but they aren’t really at risk of losing the case and also needing to pay all sorts of other money. And that’s because this case isn’t just phrased as “YOU can’t do <X>” but instead as “NOBODY can do <X>”. Hadn’t though about that, makes sense!
You mention hours of the Akhil Amar podcast you listened to (presumably on this subject). Are there specific episodes of it you'd recommend?
I like Akhil Amar a lot (as my footnotes keep giving away), but my first time listening to his podcast was when he interviewed Baude & Paulsen the other week. The episode were titled "The Two Experts on Section Three" (29 August) and "The Two Experts, Part II" (5 Sep). I liked both episodes quite a bit!
I am intending to listen to "An Officer and a President" (12 Sep), about the Blackman-Tillman argument that the President isn't an officer, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.