READING NOTES #3

Texas Decision Special

For an actual reading of the lawsuit filed by Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas, see here, as archived and probably easier to read here just in case. Here is an example of The Guardian coverage of the decision, that typically gives no analysis of the text of the filing itself, and proceeds to use the word ‘baseless’ in what has become the standard fashion. Here is an address by Justice Samuel Alito on 12 November 2020 that helps to understand Alito’s angle on the decision.  Some tweets by Nick Land put it this way:

The rigorous investigation and draconian punishment of election fraud is an important objective irrespective of its contribution to the final election result. Is there any good reason for the DOJ not to affirm this?

And this way:

One thing, surely, is clear. The Supreme Court is the final nexus of sovereignty in the USA. If it is left looking as if the Mediaplex is sovereign, it will be because the SCOTUS permitted it. That is in fact what their decision will be about.

And here:

‘Overrule’ is not right. Successfully intimidate, sure.

According to this view, the The Supreme Court has just decided that the Mediaplex has more legal sovereignty than the law itself. This is the ongoing entry of ‘cancellation’ by way of executive fiat into the domain of the law. If this decision had not already been to some extent taken, perhaps it has now been more formalized.