I don’t think there was anything different that I could have done except change one of the judges on the Supreme Court. I think if you read the articles that have come out since, including articles that interviewed some of the law clerks to the justices that unfortunately five justices had made up their mind, and it was very hard to figure out a way to change them.

Particularly by the time we actually got to the argument, because, you recall, that they had voted five to four to actually stop the vote counting before they even had the argument. And once they had stopped the vote counting, that was a pretty dramatic step and one that the court could not have taken unless five justices had pretty well made up their minds.

I think that was unfortunate. I think a democracy a decision to stop vote counting is a pretty important decision and it’s not one that should have been taken without hearing a full argument. And there’s obviously no irreparable injury to letting people count the votes. That’s what ordinarily happens in a democracy, and if they conclude that the votes should be counted some other way, they can rule that.

So, I think that the step of stopping the vote counting before the argument was both wrong, but I also think, in the context of your question, it was pretty clear how they were gonna come out on the merits.