You may recall my post about the crackpot lawsuit brought by crackpot Texas congressperson Louie Gohmert before a federal judge that the president of the senate has broad powers to decide which electoral slates should be counted on January 6th when the joint session of Congress meets to certify the results of the presidential election. The odd thing was that Gohmert was citing as the defendant vice-president Mike Pence, the very person whom, in his role as president of the senate, Gohmert was saying should have these vastly expanded powers.
But the justice department has filed a motion on Pence’s behalf saying that the lawsuit should not be directed at vice president Mike Pence.
Pence argues that the legal issues raised by Gohmert, along with a slate of Arizona Republicans, should be addressed to the House and Senate (if they should be raised at all).
…Pence later adds: “(A) suit to establish that the Vice President has discretion over the count, filed against the Vice President, is a walking legal contradiction.”
…Pence’s filing pointed out the irony of Gohmert’s argument. “Ironically, Representative Gohmert’s position, if adopted by the Court, would actually deprive him of his opportunity as a Member of the House under the Electoral Count Act to raise objections to the counting of electoral votes, and then to debate and vote on them.”
…The Justice Department gave the White House a heads up earlier this week that the Pence filing was coming, according to a person familiar with the matter. Word was sent to chief of staff Mark Meadows that the department would be asking the judge to reject the lawsuit. White House counsel Pat Cipollone was also aware it was coming.
It’s not clear whether Trump, who remains furious at the Justice Department for its perceived inaction on voter fraud, was informed himself. He has taken an interest in Pence’s role during the January 6 proceedings, though Pence and others at the White House have tried to explain to him that it’s merely a ceremonial post.
This filing seems seems to suggest that Pence has decided that he wants to make clear that his role on January 6th is purely ceremonial and that he has no discretion, so that Trump’s base will turn not turn its wrath against him when he declares Joe Biden to be the duly elected president. As expected, yesterday the US district court judge Jeremy Kernodle dismissed the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claim on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
Kernodle, who was nominated by Trump and confirmed in the Senate by voice vote in 2018, wrote that Gohmert “alleges at most an institutional injury to the House of Representatives. Under well-settled Supreme Court authority, that is insufficient to support standing.”
As for the group of Arizona Republicans, who claimed that Biden’s electors in the state were unlawfully certified, Kernodle wrote that they “allege an injury that is not fairly traceable to the Defendant, the Vice President of the United States, and is unlikely to be redressed by the requested relief.”
But what Pence thinks is largely irrelevant. What matters is what Trump will tell him to do and so far that is a mystery. Going by past performance, Trump will not do anything until close to the deadline and will then take some action that creates confusion. But while there may be some suspense about what kind of drama might ensue on that day, there really is no doubt about the outcome.
A “walking legal contradiction”? Since when do Republicans care about contradictions? All that matters is getting the desired outcome.
The case has been thrown out by a Federal judge:
Texas U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle, a Trump appointee, wrote that the plaintiffs “allege an injury that is not fairly traceable” to Pence, “and is unlikely to be redressed by the requested relief.”
Oops, sorry, I didn’t read far enough to see you included this in the original post. Delete if you like.
They will, anyway. They will say he should have declared Trump the winner because of all the fraud perpetrated by George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, and the ghost of Hugo Chavez, and that he’s a coward and a traitor. (Of course, they will be quite right in this characterization of Pence.)
BTW, have you noticed that Hillary Clinton and Hugo Chavez both have the initials HC? Coincidence? I think not! And have they ever been seen together???
The lawsuit should have been approved retroactively, giving Vice President Biden a chance to declare that on Jan. 6, 2017, he wishes he had declared Hillary or himself President, and thus all of Trump’s acts are null and there are three vacancies on the Supreme Court now for Biden to fill. Alternatively, the lawsuit could have meant that in Jan., 2025, Vice President Harris can declare herself to be the incoming President, so no need for any elections ever again. Thanks, Louie.
Uh that wasn’t dismissed with prejudice. So guess who will be filing a “new” suit tomorrow about this.
“there really is no doubt about the outcome”
Oh yeah?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/02/ted-cruz-republican-senators-reject-election-result-biden-trump
Here’s a thing : right wingers have been assailed left and right for years with allegations of sexual harassment, assault and even rape. And when they say “but, where’s the evidence?” the sjw response has been “the allegations ARE evidence”.
It now seems they’re using that exact argument here.
“The 2020 election, however, featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities.”
No hard evidence for such claims has been presented….”
Allegations are evidence… aren’t they?
Allegations made by victims of various sex based crimes are indeed primary evidence. I’m not going to bother with explaining the difference between a victims real experience of criminal sexual conduct, and inventing rumors from whole cloth in order to file baseless legal claims based on said rumor. He lost and no amount of lying, questioning the process, or pandering to the bigots will change that fact.
I know that. God luck explaining to them…
So you agree it’s not “that exact same argument”. Why did you claim it was @9?
It’s not “them” it has to be explained to, if only because they know it perfectly well, as you do. What’s odd is your pretence @9 that you don’t.
Have you noticed that in many of the cases of alleged sexual harrassment, assault or rape you mention @9, the allegations have been brought to court, sworn to by victims, and found proven beyond a reasonable doubt? While in the case of the allegations of fraud, not one specific allegation has been presented in court -- where lying could attract penalties for perjury -- let alone been found proved.
Incidentally, it is by no means just “right-wingers” who have been accused of sexually predatory behaviour, and had the accusations substantiated. Does the name Bill Cosby call anything to mind? Al Franken (admittedly, there was some photographic evidence in that case). Harvey Weinstein? Francisco J. Ayala? John Conyers?