Read on Twitter
Oh come on, guys, give me some time off!
Note: This is a new litigation seeking a declaratory judgment that the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional in that it conflicts with the 12th Amendment.
It doesn't https://twitter.com/JJGass/status/1343588780347953154
Note: This is a new litigation seeking a declaratory judgment that the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional in that it conflicts with the 12th Amendment.
It doesn't https://twitter.com/JJGass/status/1343588780347953154
Here's the entire 12th Amendment. Pay attention to the highlighting and follow along
Here's the 12A process
1) "The Electors" meet, vote, and transmit their lists of votes to the President of the Senate
2) The PoS SHALL open the certificates and count the votes
3) Whoever has a majority wins
4) If nobody has a majority after counting, the House delegations vote
1) "The Electors" meet, vote, and transmit their lists of votes to the President of the Senate
2) The PoS SHALL open the certificates and count the votes
3) Whoever has a majority wins
4) If nobody has a majority after counting, the House delegations vote
You'll note that it has exactly NO procedures for determining *who* "the Electors" are; "the Electors" are simply the electors appointed as provided for in Article 2, as to which there should be no controversy.
It does NOT say "the President of the Senate first determines who the Electors are, in his awesome plenary power, and then counts the votes he wants to count"
It just says he MUST (no discretion) open the certificates sent by "the Electors"
It just says he MUST (no discretion) open the certificates sent by "the Electors"
The 12th Amendment, then, addresses "what do we do with the Electors' votes"
That's it.
That's it.
The Electoral Count Act, in contrast, addresses a *completely different question*: How do we resolve disputes about who "the Electors" are, if there are any such disputes, so we can count their votes using the 12A process?
Because they answer different questions, it is, as far as I can tell & before reading what I expect will be a lame argument from Louie Gohmert and the rest of the neoconfederate treasonweasels, entirely and completely impossible for the 12A and the Electoral Count Act to conflict
Oh come on
Here's their summary of the case. Can you spot the issue?
There is exactly zero chance that Louie Gohmert and his assorted co-plaintiffs have standing here. He is alleging that the Electoral Count Act: (1) compels Mike Pence to do something unconstitutional; (2) limit's Mike Pence's authority; and (3) limits the House's rights
Slight problem, there, Louie. You, it turns out, are not Mike Pence. Also, oddly enough, you aren't the House of Representatives. Neither are any of your co-treasonweasels
So you don't have any standing at all to run into court and complain about the alleged violation of Pence's rights or duties, or the House's
That's before we get to the substance, which is - as noted above - completely and totally wrong. But let's continue
Oh, Gohmert and crew also think they're a State legislature, apparently.
Plus they figured "outright lying to a federal court" was a good way to start a complaint.
No, "the State of Arizona" hasn't "appointed two competing slates of electors"
Plus they figured "outright lying to a federal court" was a good way to start a complaint.
No, "the State of Arizona" hasn't "appointed two competing slates of electors"
Though I guess I can understand why the distinction between "appointed by the State of Arizona" and "we declare we were appointed by the State of Arizona" would confuse a group of plaintiffs who think they are Mike Pence
Man have they ever packed a lot of obvious wrong into one tight paragraph
First of all,
Seriously - what the hell is a "Representative for Texas' First Congressional District" doing joined as plaintiff in a lawsuit with "the entire slate of Republican nominees for elector in Arizona"?
As crossovers go ...
Second, "with the permission and endorsement of the Arizona legislature" - what? The Arizona legislature was not in session. It did not vote to appoint republican electors. 22 Republican members of the AZ House and Senate (plus assorted "rep/sen elects") signed a
"joint resolution" supporting the fake electors.
The Arizona House has *60* members. The Arizona Senate has 30. They couldn't even get a majority of the House signed on. https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2020/12/14/fake-electoral-votes-trump-arizona-gop-has-completely-lost/3898476001/
The Arizona House has *60* members. The Arizona Senate has 30. They couldn't even get a majority of the House signed on. https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2020/12/14/fake-electoral-votes-trump-arizona-gop-has-completely-lost/3898476001/
They got (by my count of the names on the list in the article) 14 AZ House members and 8 AZ Senate members. Basically 25% of each chamber.
If that's "the Arizona State Legislature appointing electors" then the Democrat minority in the AZ legislature should start getting together in someone's house and passing whatever laws they want, and overriding the governor's veto of them, too. Why not?!
Seriously, this isn't even flat-eartherism. This is "the earth is made out of cheese and look, I'll prove it by eating a handful of dirt .... mmmm, delicious"-ism.
I've spent a lot of time saying no sanctions will come out of this nonsense. But every single person involved in this filing deserves to be sanctioned into oblivion for this. It's literally impossible to have a good-faith belief that "14 AZ Reps and 8 AZ Senators" = Legislature
Also, did you notice that they alleged the "alternate slate" was appointed in the manner required by the Electoral Count Act? (The one they're seeking to have declared unconstitutional, yes)
Last, it's a super-bold choice to argue that the Arizona election is tainted by clearly evidenced fraud and wrong-doing despite, you know, multiple court decisions in AZ saying the exact opposite
Oh
This ... this is not the path to standing, guys
There's no Constitutional right to "object" to the counting of electoral votes, so there can't be any Constitutional right to have that "objection" resolved by any particular procedures
Also, the "Twelve" Amendment doesn't lay out any procedures for addressing objections, so there's that, too
Speaking of my prior "saying it loudly does not make it so, guys" tweet, enjoy
Yeah, no facts in dispute about standing. Everyone agrees that the Arizona Legislature appointed an alternate slate.
Also, Louie, bubbie, baby, what are you doing?
That whole "well, will a senator object, too" thing?
Those are the procedures under the Electoral Count Act.
Which you're specifically arguing is unconstitutional.
So why should the Court care?
Those are the procedures under the Electoral Count Act.
Which you're specifically arguing is unconstitutional.
So why should the Court care?
This is a lovely try, and also incredibly stupid, and maybe you should have thought about NOT waiting until a week before the congressional count to file your stupid bullshit claims? Maybe?
Ohhhh, that's why Gohmert is in the case. Forum shopping
Twitter is acting weird and ate a tweet. BRB
OK, let's try from here. Is Mike Pence the right defendant in a suit to declare the ECA unconstitutional? I don't know. Frankly, I don't know who would be, beyond "the United States"
OK, for whatever reason, Twitter is NOT processing my tweets that have screenshots attached. Gonna take a break from this thread and come back to it
Still not working. Gonna have to go do actual work for a bit, too. In the meantime, follow Mike's thread on this. Also, enjoy Exhibit A, the "Joint Resolution" of the "Arizona State Legislature" signed by a grand total of 20 (of the 90) state legislators https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.203073/gov.uscourts.txed.203073.1.1.pdf
