Wednesday, 9 December 2020


In an apparently unananmious and delightfully terse decision, the US Supreme Court, despite it being stacked with three justices appointed by Trump himself, rejected mounting efforts to reverse the results of the election outcome in the state of Pennsylvania.

A toady representative built his case on the specious argument that universal mail-in voting (enacted in 2019) defies constitutionality and therefore all ballots not cast in person and on the day of the election ought to be null and void. This decision—based on the title principle from the French legal concept of dilatoriness (laschesses), that is a lack of a lack of diligence in exercising a party’s right to challenge and failing to do so in a timely matter (changing the rules after the election prejudices the defence) is hopefully the last of a series of suites that either sought to throw out millions of votes or allow the state legislature to advance faithless electors to the collegium, which convenes on 14 December to cast their votes. Vigilantibus non dormientibus รฆquitas subvenit. Equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent.