Answering a few of your questions . . .
Q: Could you address this worrisome development concerning the January 6 joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes?
Certainly. Much of Twitter is persuaded that doom awaits. In fact, what awaits is theater.
I’ll lay the entire process out here, and show why the Republicans can’t throw out Biden’s win. Applicable law is the Electoral Count Act and of course, your favorite document and mine, the Constitution. Or, if you prefer cliff notes, here’s the Congressional Research Service doc.
In a nutshell, here’s what happens on Jan. 6. The Houses meet to count the votes. Both Houses are required by law to declare the winner of the election. But (and here’s the rub) members may object to particular electors.
This creates the potential for some theater. Trump loyalists can object. What then? If both a Senator and member of the House object to a particular elector, there is a recess. The Houses meet separately for a maximum of 2 hours. They vote. If both Houses agree, the delegates are tossed.
“An objection to a state’s electoral vote must be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded.” (For additional information, see CRS Report RL 32717)
There is a zero chance the Democratic-held house will vote to exclude electors. There’s probably also a zero chance the Republicans will vote to exclude electors. Enough Republicans have said Stop The Nonsense.
So you can see there is opportunity for fireworks and headline-grabbing drama, but not for declaring Trump the winner.
One bit of confusion is the idea that the House votes by delegation, meaning one vote per state. Nope. That only happens if the electoral college splits 269-269 (or other equally unlikely scenarios).
If two slates of electors show up from one state (also highly unlikely) and Congress can’t resolve the dispute, it gets kicked back to the state and the governor decides, not the legislature. The governors of PA, GA, WI, MI, and AZ have indicated they are not going to play.
He also had a lot banked on Texas v. Pennsylvania heading to the Supreme Court case, and that didn’t work out so well. He’s looking for demonstrations of loyalty so he can retain his grip on the Republican Party so he can retain the power that comes with controlling a major party.
What frustrates Trump about SCOTUS’s decision not even letting him in the door is that he wants a trial to create drama and theater. He wants all eyes riveted on the stage as he presents his “evidence” (spreads his lies). So the theatrical part of Jan. 6 matters to him.
Q: Many are hoping the Supreme Court will handle the Texas case as they did PA. Don’t even take the case (no explanation needed or given). Isn’t this a big opportunity for the court to clarify things for the American people? I would consider these options:
1- reject the case but write a reason. The court isn’t a political body, and won’t be treated as such. Maybe also throw in that the case is garbage.
2- take the case and rule against Trump 9-0 in a way that sets some legal precedent so this becomes harder in the future.
The refusal to hear the case is great, but seems inadequate without a statement.
I didn’t get a chance to answer this before the decision came down, but I can comment on what they did. (I expected the decision to come Monday, not late Friday!) Basically the order was just a refusal to take the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to raise the issue. Alito and Thomas said they believed the Court had no choice but to take the case (not an unreasonable reading of the Constitution) but they would deny “other remedies.”
If the Court says “no standing” it’s a reasonable (and common) next step to just throw out the case and not consider the merits. Throwing the case out on standing (one state doesn’t have standing to sue another based on their election procedures) was a neat way to avoid hundreds of those cases coming to the Supreme Court. Can you imagine the nightmare of that? If they said they would take the case, state would start suing each other. Why couldn’t California sue Florida for gerrymandering, insisting that California is harmed when the US House of Representatives isn’t fairly representative? California could sue Texas for closing the polling places early.
The last thing the Supreme Court wants is to be the center ring in a circus. Getting rid of the case on standing was neat and easy way to get rid of it.
In fact, someone (yours truly) tweeted a few days ago that it would be an easy way for the court to get rid of the case:
So I’m not surprised by the decision to get rid of the case on standing.
This was a total burn to Trump. “His” justices, the three he appointed (Gorusch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) didn’t even let him in the door, without a word of explanation. Door slammed.
(Another question that came through the “Ask Teri” tab was whether Trump and the lawyers trying to overturn the election can be tried for treason. There’s also talk on Twitter about the crime of sedition. I’ll try to get to those tomorrow (or soon.)
