21 September 2023

A Conflict of Interest

Sometimes, silence is the best response, because even showing up makes the other side's point. Continuing from yesterday's toned-down screed:

Later yesterday, an amicus brief in support of staying the three-judge District Court ruling of 05 September in the remand of Milligan was filed, professing to represent the views of "Members of the Alabama Congressional Delegation," specifically (alphabetically by surname, not in the order stated in the Statement of Interest):

  • Robert Aderholt, a white male R
  • Jerry Carl, a white male R
  • Barry Moore, a white male R
  • Gary Palmer, a white male R
  • Mike Rogers, a white male R
  • Dale Strong, a white male R

But they left exactly one member of the Alabama Congressional Delegation out:

  • Terri Sewell, a black female D

perhaps because she's a girl — ewwww, girl cooties. And a prominent cosponsor of voting rights legislation (the subject of the underlying litigation).

And that other thing (no, not party affiliation). Which I really, really wish didn't matter — but it does in this context.

It's very fortunate indeed for the "Members of the Alabama Congressional Delegation" that the rules regarding amicus briefs on stay motions do not require a Statement of Conflict of Interest, isn't it? Their collective official photos provide considerable support for the plaintiffs below… and further reinforce my long-held view that no aspect of "voting regulation" should be under the direct supervision of elected officials due to precisely this conflict of interest.

Fortunately, I'm no longer subject to Article 88 (which has been interpreted to mean "individual members of Congress" and not just "Congress" per se). My only realistic defense would be that I hold this sort of nonsense so far beneath contempt that nothing I've stated here constitutes "contemptuous words," and somehow I suspect that wouldn't go over very well.