Election Update - Gohmert - House of Representatives Amicus:
The proposed amicus brief from the House of Representatives is up. Let's take a look.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.203073/gov.uscourts.txed.203073.22.0.pdf

Pro Tip:
When your party controls the house, you get a substantial say in what litigation is filed on behalf of the house as a whole.

That comes in handy sometimes.

Also, McCarthy and Scalise are treasonweasly little pondsuckers but this isn't exactly Page 1 news anymore.

If I had a dollar for every time I saw the phrase "unprecedented relief" in a federal court filing this election cycle, I could pay my PACER bill for this election cycle.

Based on the strong opening paragraph, I suspect that the House's amicus is going to be a bit more hard-hitting than Pence's actual response to the motion.

We've seen a lot of lawyers point out that a lot of things in a lot of Republican lawsuits have been "at odds" with a lot of other things. I think this is the first to say that an argument is at odds with American History.

While I'm no @KevinMKruse, I think the House is right.

Little bit of subtle shade in the "properly designated" part of this. I'm hoping that's foreshadowing and we get less subtle shade directed at the same cosplay clowns later in the brief.

Wow. It feels like just yesterday that I was trying to explain to various Trumpists that the ECA is consistent with the Twelfth Amendment. Oh, right. It was.

Honestly, I think there are additional reasons and I'm a bit surprised that they're not arguing political question. Then again, this is also a 26-page uninvited amicus brief. Only so much you can fit in there.

Glad to see that they're pointing out that this is additional litigation by vexatious litigants Kelli Ward and Her Arizonan Asshats.

There's a reason that everyone is citing Siegel's law review article. It's absolutely superb work.

Good work pointing out that Congress has always been involved in the counting and dispute resolution process. That goes a good distance toward showing that Pence doesn't have the sweeping powers Gohmert is trying to invent.

Good background here - again highlighting, if subtly, the separation of powers issues that are in play here.

And, for the nonlawyers, yes, federal judges do take separation of powers seriously. Decent federal judges - which is the vast majority - actively question their role.

Some additional subtle shade here - pointing out that even if the Arizona pseudoelectors were the real electors, they'd still have to vote for Biden.

Good information here - potentially worth pointing out to some of the diehard Trumpists - regarding the audit process in Arizona.

They're doing a solid job here highlighting that Ward has already lost repeated court battles - and that she was joined by other plaintiffs in one of those cases. Courts love it when people who have lost the same case elsewhere try to sneak into their courtroom with a new theory.

And also very solid work here - the lawyers for the House are being careful to not prejudge the competing electors issue explicitly, since that may be before Congress later, but they still get the point across.

Yeah, there are very laches issues with this one. Again.

This paragraph is what you'd might call "unequivocal."

The standing argument is really a slam-dunk as far as Gohmert is concerned.

I'm gratified to see the "appears to contend" here. As I might have said a few times on stream last night, I've read the filing but no matter how hard I try I just can't quite be confident that I've figured out what his alleged injury is.

I guess it's not just me.

For the nonlawyers, a rough translation:
"Gohmert seems to be claiming that the ECA wrongfully benefits Gohmert while harming Pence so he's suing Pence to try and fix it, and yeah we're pretty sure that's the argument.

I love "contrary to constitutional text, logic, and history" - it's great phrasing.

This is a not-so-subtle "why are we here in your specific courtroom, judge?"

Looks like I spoke too soon when I thought they were avoiding prejudging the electors thing. Looks like they were just waiting for a better time to take the shot - and this is definitely the perfect time.

Good point here. They lost the election. They lost the election challenge. They lost the Krakensuit. They aren't directly challenging those losses here.

They can't have candidate standing because they're not really claiming to even be candidates anymore. They're just losers.

And they're losers who are trying to sue someone who had nothing - at least in his role as President of the Senate - to do with their defeat.

Honestly, I feel like most of y'all could probably write this section of the brief by this point in the election.

Good footnote though - gives the court a reason to use laches even though Pence didn't raise it.

I feel like this could be made into a parody of a Barenaked Ladies song.

It's been one month since you looked at me
cocked your head to the side and said "you're crazy"
Twenty days since...

Seriously, the more last-ditch the suits get, the more obviously last-ditch they become.

Courts don't favor case after case, especially when each is just a bit nuttier than the last.

And they're back to pointing out how just breathtakingly sweeping the demanded relief is.

These sections are difficult to write sometimes. Lawyers are used to responding to legal filings that make sane arguments; this is like trying to respond to Jabberwocky.

The "by the way, Judge, you probably already noticed but they're trying to screw you, too" is a nice touch.

Moving on, they point out that on the merits, this case has no merits.

The "active voice/passive voice" thing has already been commented on by most of the lawyers who discussed the Amendment, as has the fact that we've never resolved disputes the way they claim is required.

Same goes for the other Gohmertistical arguments - all of which were, quite honestly, just absolute shit.

And the other injunctive relief stuff is also not exactly running in favor of the plaintiffs here.

Overall:
I think the judge correctly determined that the plaintiffs deserve to spend all night tonight responding to the oppositions to the mess they dumped on the docket.

The only thing I'm not sure about is which grounds will be discussed in the order disposing of the case.

Happy New Year, y'all!

I'm not going to look at the thing from the attempted intervener tonight. Might tomorrow, don't know.