Read on Twitter
So I decided to skim - just skim - the motion for preliminary injunction in the Gohmert suit.
I can't wait until @AkivaMCohen sees this, because I think they've managed to somehow, in defiance of all plausible expectations, make their standing argument dumber.
I can't wait until @AkivaMCohen sees this, because I think they've managed to somehow, in defiance of all plausible expectations, make their standing argument dumber.
Here we go -
They're literally adding an argument that they have standing based on injuries inflicted "by third parties in Arizona."
Yes, really.
They're literally adding an argument that they have standing based on injuries inflicted "by third parties in Arizona."
Yes, really.
(By the way, links to the documents are now on courtlistener.)
(You're welcome.) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/25729521/gohmert-v-pence/
(You're welcome.) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/25729521/gohmert-v-pence/
There are, of course, many times many problems with the argument that they have standing to sue Pence for a declaration that the Electoral Count Act is unconstituional.
I'm just going to highlight one right now:
redressability.
I'm just going to highlight one right now:
redressability.
For the nonlawyers:
If the court cannot redress - cannot fix - your claimed injury, you have no standing.
Here, they are claiming that "but for the alleged wrongful conduct of Arizona executive branch officials...Plaintiff Arizona Electors would have been certified..."
If the court cannot redress - cannot fix - your claimed injury, you have no standing.
Here, they are claiming that "but for the alleged wrongful conduct of Arizona executive branch officials...Plaintiff Arizona Electors would have been certified..."
But they're not asking the court to declare that they're the rightful electors for Arizona. They're asking the court to declare that Pence can pick whichever group of electors he wants to be the ones to count.
There's no guarantee that remedy would fix their injury.
There's no guarantee that remedy would fix their injury.
Pence would be completely free in that scenario to decide that the only group of electors with any claim to state certification, the ones who reflect the popular vote of the state, which was confirmed in multiple court cases, are the ones he'll count.
The remedy doesn't become more legally certain simply because you are assuming with, admittedly, some reason, that the Vice President is as big of a treasonweaselly turdfestival as you.
Their claimed injury simply isn't redressable through the case they're bringing.
Their claimed injury simply isn't redressable through the case they're bringing.
Also, if the court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin the Vice President (spoiler alert: it does) an "authoritative declaration" becomes an "advisory opinion," which is something else that the federal courts can't constitutionally do.
Also, I'm pretty sure I used more words in my four tweets discussing why this case presents a non-justiciable political question than they did in this sad little "at least you tried" semi-attempt to address it for the court.
