.@rickhasen Can you say more on why you think Kobach's version of events is more likely to be accepted if there's no factfinding by Court?
-
-
Replying to @rickhasen
@rickhasen But maybe letter + statute is enough to get Taylor off ballot2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @DKElections
@DKElections@rickhasen "facts" on offer here do seem fairly confined, no?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joshtpm
@joshtpm@DKElections not sure what you mean by "confined." Q is whether gov't official gave assurances letter was ok.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rickhasen
@rickhasen mean that number of facts, open questions fairly tight, not far-flung as in many other cases1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rickhasen
@rickhasen right. so they're saying, however confined, we don't really care, not necessary for decision, yes?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
.@joshtpm Fact cd be irrelevant b/c they view "pursuant" language enough under statute. Or they don't and reject estoppel against govt (2/2)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.