I would argue that, without the punctuation, it's not technically correct. The references to James and John saying "had had," at least, should be in quotes. Additionally, unless broken up with a semicolon or a period before the final four "hads," it's a run-on sentence.
If you change the "hads" that mean provided/said in the context of the sentence (excluding the quoted ones), you could write it as:
James, while John had [said] "had", had [said] "had had"; "had had" had [provided] a better effect on the teacher.
And though it doesn't flow right to me to have James and his action verb split by a phrase about John, I'm not sure that's incorrect. Phrasing it to fix the flow, for me, would be:
While John had [said] "had", James had [said] "had had"; "had had" had [provided] a better effect on the teacher.
Alternately, do sell it, but make sure it's guaranteed to fail and become an expensive paperweight upon first use. I'd prefer your option, but I'll take mine if I can't get yours.
Oh if only there were something, anything the Democrats could have done! I don't know, maybe something like refusing to fund the government if the subsidies weren't extended.
Fuck the Dems. I mean, fuck the MAGAts and Repubs, too, with cacti, but the Dems shouldn't get a pass.
OP replaces with Butter and ella. Seems doable.