Regarding the new legal strategy against the Electoral College, the reader responds:
You need Garland seated to have a 5-4 split of the court, because both postponing the EC vote and Lessig’s argument go to SCOTUS.
Which presumes SCOTUS is permanently politically polarized. Is this a viable assumption? Justice Kennedy is the well known swing vote, which no one can predict, but Chief Justice Roberts remains a question mark, a cipher. While he may be one of the godfathers of the dreadful arbitration decisions, he also salvaged the ACA when Kennedy voted against it. Roberts’ sense of legacy is interesting, and he may look at a chance to rupture the Electoral College as a prime opportunity to stamp The Roberts Court on American history – or even to save the country, if he’s an alarmist.
And, of course, this assumes the usual liberals would vote to circumvent the Electoral College – again, a political assumption.
