Gohmert tries again. I say he should succeed, just not this election.

https://thespectator.info/2021/01/02/rep-gohmert-files-response-to-doj-pence-argues-vp-can-count-gop-electors-in-contested-states-ignore-electors-from-others/

Let the courts rule in favor of the VP picking presidents from 2024 onward. Makes sense. This is too close to this one for major changes in the law and Constitutional questions. Particularly since it should be appealed all the way to SCOTUS. And for those conservatives who balk, tell them they can keep the Electoral College.

33 thoughts on “Gohmert tries again. I say he should succeed, just not this election.

    1. Trump’s cries to Congressional GOP members to “do something” IS a request for some Trumplican idiot to file a suit that has no basis in law, the Constitution or , G-d forbid, common sense.

      ANd of course Pence rejected it. He knows that his position on Jan 6th is strictly symbolic in nature. One of the few “jobs” of the President of the Senate.

      And I wonder why YOU are not worried about the continued attacks on our democratic principles. Wait. No I’m not. You have made it clear on numerous occasions that you do not believe in the rights of ALL citizens to exercise their voting rights; only those who vote the same way you do.

      This country is a Democratic Republic. BOTH of the words are important to this country. Too bad you only think that the ‘republic’ part is important.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. They didn’t violate the Constitution, so I have no problem. There is very good reason to rule that state legislatures can delegate duties and powers not specifically denied. Kind of a states’ rights issue.

          On the federal level, the president can decide how and what to enforce as he sees fit. That’s not in the Constitution either, but your government has let that be the modus operandi for decades.

          What you really want is national norms on national elections. This election is just as legal and above board as can be until we decide to change the laws. And we can, after the fact. Trump may have done at least one thing right. His phony attempt to subvert the votes in favor of a “president for life” is a wake up call to Americans.

          A wake up call to at least the 81 million who voted for our nation and its continuance.

          A sticking point for me and most Americans is when the likes of Gohmert and Trump specifically call for a violent overthrow of our government.

          There needs to be accountability for those who swore an oath the defend the Constitution.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. That’s a lot of words to avoid the simple truth. Is deflection the best you can do.

            The US Constitution very plainly says that Electors will be chosen in the manner determined by the legislatures.

            In the case of the PA Constitution, there is an added provision that FOR THAT STATE changes in election law must be ratified by the people as a constitutional amendment.

            Executive Branch officials, and in some cases judges, made changes to those methods and IN NO CASE was that power delegated by their legislatures. They could have, but they didn’t.

            So, every one of the elections where anyone other than the legislature changed the manner of the election was unlawful. It’s pretty black and white. The problem is remedy.

            While the elections were held unlawfully, the voters acted in good faith. So, how to unwind the mess without disenfranchising honest voters?

            I would settle for letting the election stand IF every state official and judge involved in conducting the unlawful elections got lengthy prison terms to discourage a repeat, and every party operative who exploited those openings to commit fraud got life without parole.

            Like

        2. “Several of the contested states violated both the US Constitution and their own State constitutions.”

          Obviously true, but what I fail to understand is why judge after judge after judge after judge after judge after judge after judge after judge has failed to see what is clearly the case.

          If you can help with this I’d GREATLY appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. States run their own elections. You can’t attempt to or call for an overthrow of the people’s votes because you don’t like the outcome.

          How much voter fraud has been proven? How many people voted under the rules established by their states and counted on their votes being counted?

          I get it. If they don’t vote YOUR way, they are illegitimate votes. THe almost 80 million folks who voted for Biden have one thing for you, The Trumplicans and the morons in the conservative media bubble : Insert Bronx Cheer Here.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “And yet the Constitution remains what it is.”

            Uh, let’s see you name a single state whose election statutes are the SOLE province of the “Legislature” without the consent or involvement of the Governor. And while you are at it, name a single state whose election statutes are not subject to judicial review by the courts of that state. I have offered you this challenge before and you have never even tried to respond. I think you know that it is very unlikely that you can do so which is clear evidence that you are construing the language in the Constitution far too narrowly.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. “Gohmert said in the interview that he still believed in the court system and was hopeful for his appeal, but that the rejection of his suit amounted to leaving those upset about the election with no recourse but street violence.
      “Basically, in effect, the ruling would be that you’ve got to go to the streets and be as violent as antifa and BLM.”

      https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/01/louie-gohmert-lawsuit-pence-453387?cid=apn

      Gohmert is appealing to the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court.

      But it is obvious that Gohmert, Trump, and other Republicans want to steal the election. No pretense of “belief in the court system” anymore.

      So now the call is for violence.

      Sedition is unquestionably the plan, and was for the last 4 years.

      Like the red tide, the red party scum and stench have now touched the shores of our nation. Trump and his spineless minions are reveling in it. Putin is so proud. And he should be. The administration let him and his hacking soldiers have a field day for 9 months roaming through our computers at will.

      That is treason.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “But it is obvious that Gohmert, Trump, and other Republicans want to steal the election.”

        You have the issues exactly backwards.

        The VP clearly has Amendment 12 authority to decide the election by presiding over the Electoral College count. Other VPs — most notably Thomas Jefferson — have exercised the Amendment 12 authority in the past.

        At issue is the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The Act establishes procedures for conducting the electoral count, but may be unconstitutional on various grounds.

        Had Gohmert’s lawsuit succeeded, it would have restored the Constitutional order, not changed it.

        Like

        1. So again, if we do reform our laws based on thorny and debatable issues after SCOTUS takes the case and rules next summer, then 2024 can be decided by Harris.

          Do you really want that?

          Remember Brown v. Board of Ed ruled separate but equal unconstitutional. So laws changed, but were not retroactive. You may not overturn this election, but have clearer laws for the next ones.

          This attack by Trump is two pronged. First, trying to prove actual fraud. And those efforts failed, but were listed in the suit as reasons no matter the veracity. (Scytl servers in Germany…not even close to true or existing.)

          Second, the after the fact attempts to declare voting procedures to change laws retroactively in losing states. And being rejected, are now demanding powers the VP does not have.

          Actually, there is a third prong: violence as called for by Trump and Gohmert. That is sedition and failure to uphold oath to defend the Constitution.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “Do you really want that?”

          If I have to choose between Constitutional order and anarchy, I’ll go with Constitutional order. Abuse of the Amendment 12 authority would lead to anarchy, just as fraudulent elections do.

          Like

          1. Gohmert is calling for that abuse in his suit.

            The people have spoken. Trump lost. The courts have spoken. Trump has lost over 50 times.

            As I pointed out previously; if Trump would have conceded the results when they became obvious, he would have only lost once. Now the losses continue to mount. His next reality show won’t be a reboot of The Apprentice; it will be a reboot of The Biggest Loser.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. Were the electors in the contested states chosen in the manner prescribed by their legislatures or not?

            We can speculate as to whether the outcome would have been different or not, but that is unknowable.

            Like

          2. I posted a reference to that delegation power by various states with regards the legislatures.

            If delegation is lawful, which it seems to be, then the efforts by Trump are despicable.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. No, the reference was to states that specifically prohibit delegation of certain powers.

            That does not mean that all others are automatically delegated. Only that they can be if the legislature specifically does so.

            They have not.

            Like

          4. Yes, they were. Too bad you only challenge things when the outcome is not in your favor.

            You have advocated numerous times for only YOUR people being allowed to vote. The many states changed their laws in order for that to NOT occur; they want people to vote. YOU don’t.

            And the laws in PA were changed by the GOP=led legislature. Now they are basically trying to undo what they themselves did. The attempt to disenfranchise American voters is disgusting and something you should be fighting, but you won’t. Why? Because the majority of voters disagree with you ideas. So instead of allowing folks to vote, you and the GOP want to prevent them from voting. And the why of that has been answered here numerous times. More people voting means fewer Republicans in power.

            Like

          5. My people?

            You mean alive? Citizens? Of sound mind?

            I do believe that we should require people to actually show up, or make a positive effort to vote. I don’t want people to vote as though it were a push poll, where activists go to their homes or workplace and shove a ballot under their nose to vote under their watchful eyes.

            I’d even go further if I could, I’d like to see it require some effort and engagement.

            Like

          6. If people receiving SS disability payments for mental incompetence can buy guns, then they can certainly vote.

            For that matter, 74 million did just that. Not all of them getting payments from SS, however.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “Were the electors in the contested states chosen in the manner prescribed by their legislatures or not?”

            Court rulings so far say that they were. As an American citizen, you have a right to appeal. That was done also.

            The rule of law requires standing to sue.

            If you disagree, sue again. And appeal again.

            Meanwhile you can work to change the laws, elect representatives that align with your interests.

            That is how this country works, and has worked for 240 years.

            Imprisoning judges and elected officials and calling for a violent insurrection is not acceptable in a free democratically elected government. Your desire for the first and tacit approval of the second is nothing more than support for autocracy.

            It is that simple.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. And if there is disagreement on that arises, we go to court. That is also the law.

            And we did. 50 times, 90 judges, local to SCOTUS with cases brought by the best legal minds money can buy.

            You either accept the rule of law even if you don’t like the results. Or you lobby, campaign and elect people who will tighten the loose ends to your liking.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. And yet we have courts to settle issues of constitutionality.

            Perhaps they should just contact a certain retired dentist for rulings and skip all the judicial crap.

            We settle our difference in Congress and the Courts. The lone exception was in 1860 and that did not go so well.

            And we are experiencing a similar call to revolution or insurrection from the “safe behind their desks” pols surrounding Trump.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Yes, the outcome is “unknowable”, but there is no reason to speculate.

            If the concerns you have are valid the legal system(s) would deem it so and proceeded accordingly.

            They have not done so, plain and simple.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. “The election already has been stolen. ”

          Then it is theft committed by about 80 million voters. Trump lost both the popular vote (again and by a much larger margin) and the EC tallies.

          OVER, it is.

          Liked by 1 person

    3. So what if he succeeds in getting a favorable ruling this summer? Democrats will stay in the presidency from now on as Harris picks the next president.

      Might not be a bad idea. The stable genius strikes again.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “So what if he succeeds in getting a favorable ruling this summer? Democrats will stay in the presidency from now on as Harris picks the next president.”

        Not a pleasant thought, but that in fact is how the Constitution works.

        As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

        Like

        1. That is not how the Constitution works. That would negate the need for elections and have rule by appointment.

          There are plenty of choices around the world that do that. Take a look around and see if any appeal to you.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s