btw, going back to something earlier, the rats' claim that the justices can't consider the motive/circumstances causing a vacancy is tied to statutory language referring to vacancies BEFORE the 51 day limit. IOW the rats want the court to interpret that language strictly, but apply it broadly, and interpret the 51 limit broadly, and apply it hardly at all.
Shocking that even a lawyer could stand before a judge and make such a blatantly hypocritical argument.