5/ permanent GOP control of the federal government.

I mean, they'll still fit in a case now & then filed by some Christian who was discriminated against, sure. But it's no longer a priority. Restructuring the federal government to embed their preferred policies forever is.

/END

4/network of FedSoc lawyers who get these cases to the Supreme Court.

Right now they're focusing entirely on restructuring the fundamentals of the federal government via a rewrite of key parts of the Constitution, ensuring via campaign finance, gerrymandering, and voting rights law to ensure ...

3/ "model" state legislation for the state legislators they fund to introduce and push through), and much more.

The Kochs, Ricketts (banking) and the oil billionaires mostly don't care about abortion or gender identity or Christianity (some do; eg the Hobby Lobby family), but they all fund the ...

2/ theory and finance industry deregulation statutes and such. The movement's funded by the Kochs and other rightwing industrial billionaires, structured through foundations (Heritage etc), professional organizations (Federalist Society), legislative lobbying groups (ALEC, which literally drafts ...

1/ I've followed the Conservative Legal Movement since its inception as Reagan was starting his first term. Most people think it's just concerned with culture wars issues; abortion, Christianity and such. But it's always been much more than that, critically, deregulation via the unitary executive ..

No. That's their message with every unitary executive ruling - one after another after another. This is something they know would cause such non-transient legal and economic havoc that they'll be happy to finally put the loopiness to rest.

Mainly they just want to run through their '80s Bingo card.

The legal argument is so transparently dopey, and a theoretical victory for them so obviously cataclysmic, that if *this* is the case they plan to use to buy credibility, we're sunk.

And, like so much else they fetishize, just plain dopiness.

Hopefully some of those records will have been presented to the grand jury and will be released.

4/ because it's actually quite easy for courts to rule in compliance with it on behalf of a single person, a former president, who would be the only person affected.

3/ a matter of ordinary English. And as a matter of being literally *able* to effectuate it.

That's why Trump v. US, shocking though it was to almost everyone (certainly including me; I thought the initial news reports must be misinterpretations), it's simply not like the citizenship case, ...

2/ aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - but maybe Thomas and Alito do.)

It's that there's no conceivable way to strip huge numbers of people, including elderly ones, born here of their citizenship? How would MAGA even go about trying? The claim is unequivocally ridiculous as ..