To "Overturn" or NOT To "Overturn"

That is the question.

Two Con-law Profs debate--on paper--the memorandums written to Mike Pence regarding the authority of the Vice-President to reject electoral votes pending further review from States.

That is NOT "overturning" an election, no matter the drivel-drool Pence emits.

One debater is the author of the memos.  The other is another Claremont guy.

The reason you haven't heard the arguments is simple:  no MSM outlet could or would represent them fairly.  That would require both integrity and intelligence. 

(Note:  Danny-Boy O'Donnell will 'cover' the story today.  We'll learn about integrity and intelligence, eh?   Here's what's relevant to Danny-Boy's "argument" from Eastman's rebuttal:

...This entire dispute turns on the question of whether the electors were legally appointed, and the whole foundation for my memo, and for my ultimate advice, was that they were not, precisely because non-legislative officials in the several states at issue altered or suspended state election law in violation of the Constitution’s Article II grant of that power exclusively to the state legislatures. Remove that foundational premise, and I would not have made the arguments I did....

 .....something that "Con Scholar" O'Donnell missed entirely.  One has to admit that contradicting both Levin and Eastman, by a guy who never practiced law, takes more than a little nerve.  So we'll credit Danny-Boy for nerve, but not scholarship.)

For further reference, here's the story on the Federalist Society, which is the newest home of the Club-Establishment.