(12-26-2020 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It’s a bit of both, based on my reading. A recount was done, which narrowed the margin to just 6 votes (so the entire process wasn’t skipped).

But Hart doesn’t think a court challenge is the right path because of how quickly the court would need to rule. I don’t know why the Iowa court would require such a fast turnaround (less than 1 week) while the House would have more time, but that seems like a reasonable concern.

Not really. The court has the inherent power to keep the seat open *while* the decision is made. Nothing *mandates* that there is a butt in the seat on day 0.

There is no urgency for one butt being in a seat while the seat is open. Your rationale of 'time' really doesnt hold water very much.

My rationale? You kidding me?

I’m responding specifically to Hart’s rationale - as I said, I don’t know why the court would require such a short turnaround. If the answer is that the Iowa courts would not, and that Hart is lying, then OK. As I said, the order of operations seems off.