Earlier today Kagro X writes:
So Harold Ickes is right. This was a violation of the bedrock principle that a vote has to be counted as what it was, not what we wish, guess, or hope it was.
Kagro analogized to the distinction between courts of equity and courts at law:
What the RBC did today, it did sitting as a court of equity. But the RBC does not, ordinarily, have jurisdiction to sit as a court of equity. It sits, to complete the analogy, as a court of law.
Why that analogy and the argument fail, below.