Posted BY: Bill Markin
Most weekend golfers are familiar with the term “mulligan.” Many have probably even taken one or more.
The term was derived from an incident involving David Bernard Mulligan, a Canadian amateur golfer. Arriving late at the course, he hit a terrible shot off the first tee. Casually, he reached into his pocket, took out a new ball, placed it on the tee, and proceeded to take another shot. When asked what he was doing, he replied that since his first shot was so bad, he deserved a free chance at a second shot. This practice rapidly became known as “taking a mulligan,” and has since become part of the common vocabulary as the term for a “do-over.”
Trending: Are All Politicians Liars?
Many would argue that the Supreme Court had a terrible “first shot” in regard to the election of 2020 when they refused to become involved in the many issues raised by the Presidential election. Perhaps the most notable of these was Texas vs. Pennsylvania, in which the State of Texas asked that Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin not be allowed to certify their 2020 election results because changes in their election procedures made by courts, governors, and election officials violated the Constitution, which rests the power to define the “times, places, and manner” of federal elections solely in the hands of state legislatures, an argument commonly referred to as the “Independent State Legislature” (ISL) theory.
