“Barrett, Breyer, and Baloney” is not the name of a law firm that practices before the U.S. Supreme Court. Rather it is a description of my reaction to comments made this week by two Justices—one liberal, the other conservative (perhaps)—about the cries of liberals to expand the number of Justices on the Court (“court packing”). Of course, those cries intensified after the Court refused to intervene to prevent Texas’ abortion statute from going into effect. The Court created its own mess.

I have searched high and low for legal arguments from lawyers explaining why the substance of Texas’ claim regarding the presidential electors clause in the U.S. Constitution was, in the words of many, baseless, absurd, and other like words. I did not find any. I did find two thoughtful commentaries from two really sharp legal experts on why the lawsuit should not have been heard. However, their arguments left me shaking my head.

Late Monday, Texas’ Attorney General filed a Motion with the United States Supreme Court asking it to take jurisdiction over a lawsuit the state wants to file against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Last week I said Chief Justice John Roberts needs to do his job or get off the Bench. Now, his lawlessness and lack of fidelity to the U.S. Constitution has come home to roost on the biggest stage ever—a divisive presidential election. There is no easy answer for him.