Will Baude

Right.

Because you save your energy or whatever, based on how long it is.

And similarly, if you're told that there's an extra week de facto for people to send in ballots, you campaign a little differently.

And you certainly like pay your staff two weeks later because you got to send people in to watch the, you know, counting or whatever.

And so that's that's obviously an injury.

That's like a concrete expenditure of money.

Yeah.

And so it should count.

Like, if you tell me that we're done, no new ballots can be counted after Election Day, I can send everybody home.

But if you tell me that there's an extra two weeks in which stuff can happen, then the team has got to be there and they've got to be doing whatever's—they've got to be on the payroll at a minimum.

So I find this very intuitive, but I think there's a problem with it, too, which sort of the majority talks about, which is the court has this case Clapper.

where they say, your decision to spend money to deal with a problem doesn't create standing if the problem didn't create standing?

Right there, it was like, is the government illegally surveilling people talking to their clients?

And some of the lawyers say, look, we spent extra money.

We like flew to other countries to have conversations IRL because we were worried about monitoring.

That's an injury.

And the court said, well, look, since we already decided in part one of the opinion that you didn't have standing to challenge the possibility of monitoring, the fact that you decided to fly there, it doesn't matter.

So I think the authors of Clapper should say to just despair it.

Look, like the fact that he decided to waste his money hiring his telling his staff to monitor the process is his problem.

That has always been my intuition, but it seems wrong.