Can someone explain to me why Pence is the defendant in Gohmert’s law suit? The law suit seems to allege that Pence has certain powers that he is not taking advantage of. So it would seem to me that it would be Pence who would want to sue for the ability to take the action, or Gohmert to sue whoever tries to stop Pence from taking such an action. Unless Gohmert is claiming that it is illegal for a vice president to certify an election according to the will of the electoral college I don’t see why Pence is the one being sued.
It would be as if rather than Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, there was a case where some random church leader decided that sue a Christian baker for deciding to bake a cake for a gay couple.
On Tuesday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Kernodle of the Eastern District of Texas agreed to partially grant [Gohmert’s] request for an expedited schedule, calling for Pence to issue a response to the lawsuit by Dec. 31 at 5 p.m.
I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know if “calling for” Pence to issue a response has the same weight as a judge ordering Pence to respond.
This has been one of the major problems with dozens of the election lawsuits.
Let’s say you’re a Republican voter in a Republican county and your vote wasn’t counted because you made a mistake on your ballot and no one contacted you, they just threw your vote out.
So your solution was to sue the election officials in some Democratic counties because they contacted people that made mistakes on their ballot and their votes ended up counting? And your idea of a solution is to retroactively throw out more votes, injuring hundreds more voters?
Several judges pointed out that while having your vote thrown out was a real injury, and you were justified in looking to get that injury redressed - the proper thing to do would be to sue the election officials that threw out your ballot.
Instead you choose the sue the officials that didn’t injure voters that made mistakes, saying that because you were injured, the only fair solution is to retroactively injure everyone else.
These suits were universally rejected for real reasons, and that kind of twisted legal logic is one of them.
And if Pence doesn’t respond by tomorrow? What can the judge do? A summary judgment that Pence would be free to ignore. I repeat; this is theater playing to the deplorables boobs, not actually intending to do anything.
According to Politico, Pence and his lawyers were unwilling to play along with this scheme. The the threat of the lawsuit was part of the discussion:
“In the teleconference, Plaintiffs’ counsel made a meaningful attempt to resolve the underlying legal issues by agreement, including advising the Vice President’s counsel that Plaintiffs intended to seek immediate injunctive relief in the event the parties did not agree,” according to Gohmert’s filing. “Those discussions were not successful in reaching an agreement and this lawsuit was filed.”
Pence responds, says sorry, Louie. “Plaintiffs also have not established that they are entitled to the extraordinary relief of an injunction against the Vice President”.
Pence’s counsel, if I understand correctly, argues in part that the suit should have been made against those who make the law/rule and had the power to impose it, not against the person who is ministerially obligated to abide by it.
Amicus briefs are expected to also show up from various other parties essentially asking WTF is Louie talking about.
I think Pence is on better ground now than he was a few days ago. With objections to swing state electors now assured, he can let the members of Congress squabble about it and they can take the blame when majorities in both chambers vote down the objections.
One thing I don’t understand. What I understood of the electoral college act was that in case of alternate slates of electors coming from a state, the house and senate vote separately on which slate to accept. But no state has sent in an alternate slate. So what is there to debate and decide? The whole show is just that–a show.
AIUI, that’s the whole reason Pennsylvania Republican electors gathered to vote - so that they could count as an alternative slate. (even if they weren’t formally counted, they figured the ceremony of doing so must figure for something)
AIUI, alternate slates of electors have been sent to Congress, but they have not been certified by either the Governors or the state legislatures. So instead of ignoring them, which would be an appropriate thing to do, some people think they will be offered up as replacement electors should the House and the Senate successfully contest the chosen electors. The chance of this ploy working hovers right around zero.
Under the statute, the Vice President is required to open any certificates of electors and, importantly, “any documents purporting to be a certificate of electors.” This was done to ensure that should certificates be submitted by competing authorities in the state (as happened in 1876), that Congress would have an opportunity to review all potential electors. So under a strict reading of the statute, the VP would have to open a “certificate of electors” sent in by disaffected Republican electors in Biden states.
However, the statute also say that the joint session MUST consider a slate of electors certified by the state according to its laws prior to the “safe harbor” date to be the legitimate electors. Every state but Wisconsin met this requirement. (However the Wisconsin electors would still be required to be counted under another provision of the act.) Congress would need to object to and reject the state-certified electors in order for any alternate slate to be considered. This will not happen.
Yeah, what will happen is they’ll have to keep recessing and reconvening both chambers to pass each dispute as it is raised, making it a long slog into the night rather than the usual mere ceremonial event.
Pence has managed to dodge COVID so far, right? I don’t think he’s been publicly diagnosed.
I’m thinking that this would be good time for him to announce that he has it, or that he’s been exposed and is quarantined. Probably the latter, since he’s been vaccinated. So I’m betting he conveniently goes into quarantine at some time before the 6th.
It’ll take a while, but Biden’s nomination will make it through. It will be way smoother than it would’ve been if the vote happened on the 4th, since the GA runoffs will be safely in the rear view mirror and it will be almost 2 years, a political eternity, until the next significant election.
I still think Trump’s going to be absolutely batshit and he’ll put up the fight of his life in the 2 weeks between the 6th and the 20th. I also still think his oppositional defiance will keep him from making his final exit from the White House voluntarily. It won’t be an outright tantrum, just of couple of hours of stalling, but he won’t be capable of taking that final step on his own. I don’t think we’ll get the great visual of him being dragged out the front door, but I bet his security detail will literally have to push him out a back door.
I had to evict someone that had oppositional defiance disorder once, and even though he knew he’d run out the clock and the game was up, it still took a marshal and 2 cops to get him out - his mental condition made it impossible for him to take that step, the literal physical step that would carry him over the threshold.
Pence reminds me of the Judge Wilson character (not the historical one) in the musical 1776. He’s a strong ideologue, but he doesn’t want to do anything that might make him a significant driver of History since there’s always the chance he’ll be on the wrong side of it. He’ll alway do what the majority of veeps have done in any given situation.
Action dismissed because plaintiffs have no standing to bring their claim against Pence, as @Mahaloth posted over in the Election Day follow-along thread:
Here is how I see it. Gohmert is trying to get the 1888 act declared unconstitutional. But it does not apply to him, only to the VP, so is trying to get a writ of mandamis, forcing Pence to violate the law, get prosecuted, and then appeal to have the law declared unconstitutional. Of course the law in question is only a civil and there is no way of prosecuting a violater. And you cannot force someone to do something illegal. And the 1888 law merely puts meat on the bones that are the actual words of the constitutional. It is just a procedure that clearly expresses the intent of the constitution. I don’t think even Clarence Thomas could rule otherwise.
I am sure I am oversimplifying things here, but FWIW:
What if enough Democrats went along with the 140 or so dimwitted Republicans and refused to certify the election? Presumably, the matter would wind up at the Supreme Court, but it might take some time to get a decision. In the meantime, the new Congress would have already been sworn in and some Democrat (Pelosi, perhaps?) would be Speaker. If there was no SC decision by Jan. 20, that would make the Speaker the acting president at that point. That would seem to effectively give the Republicans a choice between President Pelosi if they persisted with their lame-ass efforts or President Biden if they dropped them. There is no question the former is more horrifying to them. As the SC decision seems extremely unlikely to overturn the election results, Biden would eventually take office.
It won’t happen, of course, but it’s mildly pleasant to contemplate.