Jamie Raskin

We had midterm congressional elections during the Civil War.

We had them in World War II.

So we're not going to cancel them because Donald Trump's feelings might be hurt again because there's an electoral landslide coming repudiating his tariffs and his inability to do anything for the American people and the economy and so on.

That's what this is about.

So, you know, he's looking for his new John Eastman.

He's looking for his new Rudy Giuliani, who will cook up some harebrained scheme totally at odds with the Constitution.

And we need people to stand up for the Constitution because, you know, one of the people who spoke to Trump about how fraudulent his theories were was his own attorney general.

who told him that it was BS.

William Barr said all his theories were BS.

The White House counsel told him he couldn't do it.

Well, now he's stuffed his administration with complete cronies, lackeys, and sycophants who will not get in his way this time.

So this is why we do need the Supreme Court to stand up.

Obviously, we can't count on the three

justices who are basically acting like Pam Bondi and Kash Patel at this point.

But let's hope that that sixth justice pro-Constitution majority that we saw in the tariffs case will stand by the Constitution when it comes to electoral federalism and the power of the states to run their own elections without unilateral, unlawful interference by the president of the United States.

He simply has no role in it.

He's out of it.

Mistakes are high because, look, in the big picture, what's happening is that we don't have meaningful, aggressive antitrust enforcement based on the law.

What we have is competing teams of lobbyists who are trying to see essentially who can satisfy the pay-to-play expectations of the Trump administration.

And we've got to get back to the rule of law generally in America, and certainly with respect to antitrust jurisprudence.