Replies

Nice post. It seems to me that Louie g. did this to get a ruling from the Court. that ruling has been shown to be that VP Pence has the authority to do as he wishes with the Electors/ electorial Votes. It has confirmed VP’s authority for all the Rats to see. Just My Humble Opinion.

That is just wrong. This, as with almost all the litigation, appears more as a press release styled as a lawsuit. It may work as an appeal to public opinion, but there is no hope of success as a lawsuit.

First, as VP Pence is obviously an incorrect Defendant, and there is no other Defendant, there is no actual case or controversy. It is styled as a case against VP Pence, but does not accuse Pence of doing, or failing to do, anything. The Court should so declare and declare a lack of jurisdiction and dismiss the case.

Second, the Court has not opined anything. Pence can open the certificates and give them to the tellers. The tellers do the reading, recording and tallying, and report their results to Pence. Pence announces the results. Pence absolutely CANNOT do as he pleases with the Electoral Votes. The law very explicitly says otherwise.

There is no RULING from the Court. The Response to the Complaint states:

To the extent any of these particular plaintiffs have a judicially cognizable claim, it would be against the Senate and the House of Representatives. After all, it is the role prescribed for the Senate and the House of Representatives in the Electoral Count Act to which plaintiffs object, not any actions that Vice President Pence has taken. Specifically, plaintiffs object to the Senate and the House of Representatives asserting a role for themselves in determining which electoral votes may be counted—a role that these plaintiffs assert is constitutionally vested in the Vice President. [...] And it would be the Senate and the House of Representatives that are best positioned to defend the Act.¹ Indeed, as a matter of logic, it is those bodies against whom plaintiffs' requested relief must run. The House of Representatives has already expressly recognized those interests by informing the Defendant that it intends to present the Court numerous arguments in response to plaintiffs' motion.
¹ The United States disagrees with plaintiffs’ unsupported assertion that the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause does not apply to the Vice President in his official capacity as the President of the Senate. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 6, cl. 1(“[F]or any Speech or Debate in either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place.”); Mot. 12.

The government contests the existence of any cognizable judicial claim, but if there is any such claim, it would be against the Senate and the House of Representatives, not VP Pence. Plaintiff objects to the provisions of the Electoral Count Act, not anything Pence did or failed to do. A defence of the Act would not fall to VP Pence. Assuming there were something to redress, Congress would have the authority to do so, VP Pence would not. The Response notes that the House has recognized its interest and plans to present numerous arguments in response to Gohmert's motion. The House will vigorously object to Gohmert's motion.

There has been no opinion expressed by the Court. Also filed today was Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants and Intervenors Briefs in Opposition (Document 23) and the Court's Order (Document 24) granting the Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. That was the last entry on the docket earlier this evening. It is unlikely the Court will even hear the case. It is likely that there will be summary judgment for VP Pence and dismissal at the pre-trial stage.

The Court has a cornucopia of reasons to choose from in dismissing the Complaint. There is no case or controversy, lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction or lack of a legitimate named defendant. As the Response concludes, "plaintiffs' suit can be resolved on a number of threshold issues."