Excellent comments, Bill. I thank you for reproducing them here, as I had missed them when you posted them at The Dispatch.
Note to self: spend more time in the comments sections at The Dispatch, if for no other reason than to seek out Beldar's wisdom.
It's reassuring to see you agree with me, by the way. The difference between what I was hearing and reading at The Dispatch and my own interpretation of the Maine SoS's decision was so stark, it really left me doubting myself. I kept asking myself over and over: what am I missing? So I breathe a sigh of relief to see your comment, which reassures me I'm not going insane over here!
You're not insane, you're seeing rather than missing, and we're singing in the Section 3 choir on pitch and in rhythm. I hadn't looked into the details in Maine, but what you describe is precisely what I would've expected to find — as should have Mr. French & Ms. Isgur, who I know from prior AO podcasts very well understand the factfinding and decision process in administrative law, and how that ties into judicial review (which will indeed happen with the Maine SecState's decision).
It's entirely possible, indeed most probable, that even if the SCOTUS affirms, or denies cert, in the Colorado case — but no other state's supreme court has similarly produced a clear-cut final (cert-worthy) judgment like that from Colorado — the GOP will hand him the nomination by late winter/early spring (e.g., after Super Tuesday on March 12th). One state lost, by itself, or even two or three lost, will probably be ignored, especially if they were blue. Or so will go the self-deception.
But I dearly hope there is some tipping point before that, which disturbs that seemingly inexorable sequence. Depending upon the scope of the SCOTUS decision — and it may become notable that they granted cert on Trump's petition, not the parallel petition filed by the Colorado Republican Party — the slope of the playing field might tilt a bit, and some obstacles suddenly become more troublesome.
Excellent comments, Bill. I thank you for reproducing them here, as I had missed them when you posted them at The Dispatch.
Note to self: spend more time in the comments sections at The Dispatch, if for no other reason than to seek out Beldar's wisdom.
It's reassuring to see you agree with me, by the way. The difference between what I was hearing and reading at The Dispatch and my own interpretation of the Maine SoS's decision was so stark, it really left me doubting myself. I kept asking myself over and over: what am I missing? So I breathe a sigh of relief to see your comment, which reassures me I'm not going insane over here!
You're not insane, you're seeing rather than missing, and we're singing in the Section 3 choir on pitch and in rhythm. I hadn't looked into the details in Maine, but what you describe is precisely what I would've expected to find — as should have Mr. French & Ms. Isgur, who I know from prior AO podcasts very well understand the factfinding and decision process in administrative law, and how that ties into judicial review (which will indeed happen with the Maine SecState's decision).
48 States to go.
Remember the Domino Theory?
It's entirely possible, indeed most probable, that even if the SCOTUS affirms, or denies cert, in the Colorado case — but no other state's supreme court has similarly produced a clear-cut final (cert-worthy) judgment like that from Colorado — the GOP will hand him the nomination by late winter/early spring (e.g., after Super Tuesday on March 12th). One state lost, by itself, or even two or three lost, will probably be ignored, especially if they were blue. Or so will go the self-deception.
But I dearly hope there is some tipping point before that, which disturbs that seemingly inexorable sequence. Depending upon the scope of the SCOTUS decision — and it may become notable that they granted cert on Trump's petition, not the parallel petition filed by the Colorado Republican Party — the slope of the playing field might tilt a bit, and some obstacles suddenly become more troublesome.