If he couldn’t then why did the democrats quickly pass a law making the VP certification of election results a ceremonial act. Indicates to me they knew he was within his rights to legally do what #2 said. But, there are arguments on both sides and only the SCOTUS could provide the answer.
Re: 9 - John Eastman was advocating a novel legal theory, and there was no state legislature that approved a second slate of electors in 2020, which seems to me to be a requirement for Eastman’s plan to have State Legislatures decide which slate should be used.
The arguments on both sides are political, not legal. The proof of this is that you had hack TV lawyers like Mark Levin making the exact opposite "legal arguments" in January 2017 and January 2021.
And the last thing this country would ever want is having the U.S. Supreme Court making rulings on electoral vote proceedings in a presidential election. The judicial branch of government should never be allowed to make legal rulings about ongoing proceedings in the other two branches of government.
Who knows, perhaps to leave no stone unturned?
In any event the Constitution and later 3 US 15 clearly state how a state's certification for a candidate is rejected (decertified), on a vote by both the House and the Senate.
Pence held the gavel and upon receiving a certificate from a state that patently violated that state's election laws, could have called for a break in the proceedings and caucused with the R leadership to find out what they intended to do about it. At that point, the Congress had options, one of which was to return the certificate and ask for confirmation it was lawful.
Assuming Pence held formal written objections in readiness for the Jan6 Session (as we are led to believe), he did not exercise that authority. Pelosi with the riot no doubt did what she could to bumrush the event.