It's a great podcast. Full of insight.

I think everyone goes through this as they develop. Is it a problem of patience? Something I struggle with is getting a superior position and then assuming that now it must be time to “do something,” when just maintaining the pressure would have eventually left my opponent with no good moves.

And, of course, one should read IJ’s amicus brief on the other side (written by yours truly), explaining why this is an extremely straightforward case and the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is obviously wrong.

Anyways, cases like this always attract a few wacky briefs as well. One of the amicus briefs is about how Alfred Kinsey destroyed America. I leave finding that one as an exercise for the reader.

If these amicus briefs have a target, it’s influencing concurrences/dissents. Alito may write separately about why the Fifth Circuit should hold that strict scrutiny is satisfied, citing these briefs. Thomas may write separately about why tiers of scrutiny should be abandoned, citing history briefs.

The correct outcome is for the court to declare the correct standard of review (strict scrutiny). Although the Court could also hold that the law is likely to fail strict scrutiny, it’s more likely to remand for the Fifth Circuit to apply the correct standard.

The Court granted review on a narrow question: Was the Fifth Circuit correct that Texas’s law gets the lowest level of judicial scrutiny, rather than the highest. Overwhelmingly, the briefs supporting Texas are about why the law is a good idea. That may be! But that’s not what the court is deciding.

It’s such a beautiful, instructive game. And I’ve won a ton of blitz games against people who play the Philidor but have apparently never studied it.