Jonathan Turley tweeted this - this AM
LEGAL SCHOLARS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT.
And if I were Eastman I might take this approach too in front of the guillotine.
GSC do you buy Eastman’s argument that Pence, by himself, could decide the election?
The guy who Eastman clerked under
And Turley is consistently, intellectually dishonest. Like you
That’s what he’s saying. He believes the votes do not matter in the slightest and we shouldn’t even have them, and that the VP can essentially decide the election himself…even if he’s on the ticket or running for Pres himself. Al Gore, according to GSC, could have just declared himself the winner. I guess Kamala can do it in 2024
I haven’t read the opinion but I doubt it. My understanding is that he could delay the count, reject delegates, or accept alternate delegates.
He would still need others to participate.
No, he can’t. The constitution doesn’t say any of this at all. Even Eastman conceded that they’d lose 9-0 in the SC.
If he were unilaterally allowed to do that, it was pointed out that Gore would have tried it in 2000.
Hence the coup. By your argument, the VP can decide who they want as President with cooperation from the state legislatures and fake electors. Good deal. Kamala will be the next President, then, yeah?
I love how they’ve gone quiet on this point. Shit - Gore would have done that if he could.
And god knows the GSC’s and Bikki’s of the world wouldn’t want Kamala doing it - especially if she ran.
They’ve never said anything anyways. From claiming it was antifa to it being a “dust up.” They’ve always denied reality. Never once owning up to it
And if it happened the other way, it’s be the biggest crime ever committed in human existance.
Yawn- you guys are way off. There’s precedent for this. We’ve gone over it.
There’d have to be a really good reason for the President of the Senate to take this action but it’s legal.
Can it be challenged? Sure. Is it possible the SCOTUS would overturn it? Yea- anything is possible.
Depends on the circumstances and fact pattern. But the law is clear. The history is clear.
Show me where it’s legal.
In the case above- the Republicans knew they had this power. The democrats, even though they protested it, knew it as well which is why they bartered for items in the South knowing they lose. Might as well get something for it.
This is the most idiotic statement you have ever made.
And that says a lot from a flatliner like you
Just…wow. No. They didn’t
Ok. Awesome. I want you to support Kamala when she unilaterally decides the election in
2024.
Tell me you have her full support. Don’t wait until then. Tell me now.
Although Republicans argued that he had the right to decide which votes to count, Democrats disagreed and argued that the Democratic majority in Congress should decide. A compromise was reached, and on January 29, 1877, the Electoral Commission Act established a commission of five senators (three Republicans, two Democrats), five representatives (three Democrats, two Republicans), and five Supreme Court justices (two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent) to decide which votes to count and resolve the dispute. However, the independent Supreme Court justice refused to serve on the commission and was replaced by a Republican justice.
No one cares what you think. Even your own side.
I’m still waiting on your answer to this
Sure they do. You repeat this same thing over and over again as if it were true. I find it funny each time you state it, so thanks for the laughs.
But back to your stupid assessment that if pence pulls off the coup for trump, you thinking that the judicial branch would have any influence after it is complete is the most laughable thing you have ever posted.
I got some beachfront property to sell you for less than 100k.
Even Eastman admitted they’d lose. But he pressed on anyway.