Posted on 12/31/2020 12:57:08 AM PST by TigerClaws
A judge in Tyler Congressman Louie Gohmert’s lawsuit against Vice President Mike Pence has set a deadline for when Pence should respond to Gohmert and the other plaintiffs’ emergency request.
Gohmert’s lawsuit, which was filed Sunday, states certain parts of the 1887 federal law, Electoral Count Act, are unconstitutional, and the litigation claims election fraud. The lawsuit would be withdrawn if Pence (and Congress) appoints President Donald Trump as president for a second term.
Gohmert along with 12 other plaintiffs, who are all Arizona GOP elector officials, state in the lawsuit that Pence should have electors in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to cast their electoral college votes for Trump instead of Biden.
On Tuesday, plaintiffs in the case requested a shortened time for response and a scheduling order from the judge.
On Wednesday, District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Tyler, set Pence’s counsel’s response due date as Thursday by 5 p.m. He also set Gohmert and the other plaintiffs’ reply due date as Friday by 9 a.m., according to court records.
In Gohmert’s document requesting a response schedule, the text states a judgment from the court would terminate “controversy arising from the conflict between the Twelfth Amendment and the Electoral Count Act.”
Gohmert’s request said the plaintiffs in the case spoke with Pence’s counsel before filing the lawsuit in a written statement and via email.
The plaintiff’s counsel and Pence’s counsel also spoke on the phone before filing the lawsuit. The document states the plaintiff’s counsel “made a meaningful attempt to resolve the underlying legal issues by agreement.”
All that language you see the MSM use is from this 1887 law which has never before been challenged before now.
I was always hesitant about pence because of the way he acted like a b.tch in the face of that whole gay pizza wedding thing.
He seemed to get tougher under Trump, but I don’t think he wants any part of this.
I’m not being a doomer. I’m being honest in my opinion of him.
I’d LOVE to be completely wrong.
It wouldn’t be the first or ten thousandth time!
bkmk
bkmk
If Gohmert is allowed this case, I'm buying an armory because the precedence established since the GCA of 1968 no longer applies.
You want to foist unconstitutional shit on us ?
We're comin' back AT'cha' !
Bookmark this as well.
The Senate Parliamentarian is to GIVE ADVICE ONLY. Pence will decide to heed any advice or to follow his conscience. Such advice has been ignored previously by a Vice President.
All the final decisions - including control of the Sergeant at Arms for the Senate - are by majority rule. Republicans control the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms. Dems can be forced to attend the presentation of the evidence of the fraud and be kept quiet during the said hearing.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/People_Parliamentarian.htm
5D chess would dictate it’ll be a guessing game and we have no idea right now.
Just some interesting pieces being moved here.
There’s no precedent. The law has never been challenged. It contradicts the clear language of the constitution = unlawful. That’s how it works.
We had ‘lawful’ segregation for 100 years... and then it wasn’t.
A majority of the SCOTUS = we win; they lose.
Lin is hoping Roberts will respond openly to him and that’d knock Roberts out of the way. Or maybe Lin will play the tapes of the recorded calls he’s referencing at the January 6 Congressional trial on the election.
I’ve never had the patience for chess.
Thank God Trump does.
And if this goes down bad, whatever he says I’ll listen to, even AFTER the vegetable is in office...God forbid.
Hey Merry Christmas and Happy New Year man! :)
Haven’t exchanged a post in a while. Hope you are well.
I slowed down for a little while because I was cracking from all of the articles and the insanity!
Wikipedia on the subject of Constitutionality:
At least one commentator, Vasan Kesavan, has argued at length that the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional, arguing that the counting scheme must be done by way of constitutional amendment:[7]:1694–1792
This article argues that the Electoral Count Act, specifically 3 U.S.C. § 15, is unconstitutional. The Electoral Count Act violates the text and structure of the Constitution in multiple ways. For example, where is the font of express or implied power to pass the Electoral Count Act? Where does Congress have the power to regulate the manner of presidential election? Where do the Electoral College Clauses provide for bicameralism in counting electoral votes? What gives the 49th Congress (of 1887) the authority to bind future Congresses and joint conventions in counting electoral votes? More generally: What gives the joint convention the power to judge the validity of electoral votes? The counting function seems to be arithmetic and ministerial. If the joint convention could judge electoral votes, it could reject enough votes to thwart the electors’ will or trigger a contingency election for President in the House of Representatives and for Vice President in the Senate, thereby arrogating to the two Houses of Congress the power to appoint the Nation’s two highest executive officers.
However, Kesavan admits:
The prevailing wisdom, in the Supreme Court and elsewhere, is that the Electoral Count Act is constitutional.
Gohmert, et al v. Pence[edit]
In order to overturn the election of 2020 and give President Trump a second term Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas initiated a lawsuit, asking U.S. District judge Jeremy Kernodle to declare the act unconstitutional and let Vice President Pence be able to have the full freedom to reject any and all Electoral certificates unilaterally and with no recourse to appeal by either House of Congress.[57]”[58][59]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act
Lin Wood @LLinWood A bit more on CJ John Roberts. I have publicly accused him & Justice Breyer of being profane anti-Trumpers. I have linked Roberts to illegal adoption, Jeffrey Epstein, pedophilia & prior knowledge of Scalia’s death. Did Roberts skip class on defamation? Maybe not . . .
Damn that right there is a whole lot of A grade whoop ass.
Bet they suppress that posting on all msm and socialist Media platforms.
Damn.
Ping
Are fake ballots constitutional?
Are dead people voting constitutional?
How about non-citizens voting and allowed to vote without proof of citizenship? I have voted in every presidential election since 1972 in 4 different states during my residence there and never asked to prove I am a citizen. I am a legal immigrant, not born in USA.
On January 6th, the Congressional proceedings NEED to open with objections from the House and Senate to ANY acceptance of electors from states utilizing the Dominion voting systems. Dominion voting systems are a national security threat to the USA
This forces the debate over their integrity to the floor of the Congress and instantly defines the traitors and the patriots in the room
Lara Trump Explains How Donald Trump Will Secure Re-Election on January 6, 2021
Dr. Gina / FR Posted on 12/31/2020 by TigerClaws
The reality is the founders of this country set up a process for a time such as this. So, what will happen on January 6th is a joint session of Congress. And all of the electoral votes have now been sent to Washington DC. They will be opened by Vice President Mike Pence and read aloud for the joint session of congress.
And if two House members object to the vote for Joe Biden, just two, then everybody takes a break. They split up then the Senate and the House divide. They go debate and then they ultimately have to vote to decide the outcome of this election. Now, here’s where it gets really interesting. Each senator gets one vote.
Now we know, we’ve been talking about what we’ve just been talking about how important it is to hold a majority in the senate but we do right now have the majority in the senate. And don’t forget the vice president also counts as a senate vote. And then as far as the House is concerned it is each delegation. So that doesn’t mean each House member gets a vote.
It’s each delegation, so each state ultimately gets a vote. So, what’s really interesting about this Dr. Gina, the Republicans are in control of 30 of those votes. The Democrats are in control of only 20.
So if it comes down to a vote and the Republicans in the House and the Senate decide gosh there was so much fraud in this election. We have evidence of it. We have affidavits, thousands of them. So the campaign has gotten, we have evidence that more people voted in the state of Pennsylvania than even were registered to vote. Thousands of dead people voting.
And for whatever reason they decide they will not certify this for Joe Biden and they vote for Donald Trump. Then guess what? Donald Trump remains president of the United States for the next four years.
“prior knowledge of Scalia’s death.”
That is the case if the House elects the President. But I don't think it is when the House is voting on whether to accept or reject an objection to an elector. Also, if the two houses vote differently the objection fails. Since we don't control the House, this is all theater.
Pence can go either way: (A) decide to heed any advice, or, (B) follow his conscience.........
All the final decisions - including control of the Sergeant at Arms for the Senate - are by majority rule.
<><> Republicans control the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms.
<><> Dems can be forced by the Sergeant at Arms to attend the presentation of the evidence of the fraud;
<><> Dems can be kept quiet during the said hearing by the Sergeant at Arms.
================================================
REFERENCE https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/People_Parliamentarian.htm
Questions about the Senate? Email a Senate historian at web site.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.