CodyyyGardner Authors T. Greg Doucette
Trumpists don't have enough votes in either chamber
What would the legal result of the proposed objections by the six Senators (need House & Senate) be?
— Alexa O'Brien (@alexadobrien) January 2, 2021
Sort of
You'd only get Acting President Nancy Pelosi if the vote counting wasn't done by January 20th when Trump's term ends
1/
And if they do manage it Pelosi takes over? Is that right?
— Phil Wheatley \u26bd\ufe0f (@philski68) January 3, 2021
Basically, if e.g. Arizona's Biden votes were thrown out, Dems would object to Arkansas or some other state soon after Arizona
When the chambers separate to consider the objection, the House would refer the question to committee first
2/
@philski68
And the committee would intentionally never meet, unless / until there was some deal worked out to let the vote-counting continue without issue
So definitely possible, a point of leverage for Dems, but still exceptionally unlikely
3/3
@philski68
Congress can do whatever it wants – if both chambers agree to it
Cruz\u2019s call for a ten day audit/election committee... there no legal authority for this to even occur correct?
— Justin Rakowski (@JustinRakowski) January 3, 2021
@greg_doucette Sedition finally? https://t.co/34vfNIPTPY
— grumpy_gator (@jonb13x) January 2, 2021
No
https://t.co/9MgwobVvYS
I know he\u2019s a blowhard, @greg_doucette, but this is inciting violence, no?
— ScubaVal #VoteGeorgiaVote (@MajikaZulJin) January 2, 2021
The audience has been standing by with itchy fingers. https://t.co/SpZ5XTNn7M
Incitement is speech that is:
1️⃣ intended to cause, and
2️⃣ reasonably likely to cause
3️⃣ imminent
4️⃣ lawless action
It needs all 4 elements
If any of those 4 are missing, it's First-Amendment protected speech
And constitutionally protected speech is never sedition
No
Um, this doesn\u2019t satisfy all four elements?
— Alex (@arg11) January 2, 2021
Immediate is imminent
4 minutes from now is imminent
4 hours from now might be imminent but probably is not
4 days from now definitely is not
Overturning the election would be a lawless action, wouldn't it?
— Harley Quinn (@HarleyVicQuinn) January 2, 2021
And what Trump is trying to get Pence and Congressional Republicans to do on January 6 is imminent, isn't it?
I would think this qualifies. But you're the expert.
But yes, both chambers of Congress acting together have always had the power to install a President. See Hayes-Tilden 1876
So if the house had a Republican majority\u2014which it may well in 2022, especially given the gerrymandering and structural minority bias\u2014would they legally be able to stop the transition in 2024 of a Democratic president-elect? https://t.co/L2o4ZVdfXO
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) January 2, 2021
Someone has to have the power. Would you rather it be the President? 5 justices of the Supreme Court?
It's functionally impossible to have an election where one party wins the presidency but neither chamber of Congress, and 218 Representatives + 51 Senators agree to toss results
Historically, why is this sort of outcome allowed to be a thing? Maybe it's a failure in my imagination, but why would congress be allowed such power?
— Pogman42 (@Pogman42) January 3, 2021
The issue is who is responsible for counting the electoral votes and confirming they're legit. Congress exclusively has that power, and the sheer volume of people that have to be convinced to ignore the results confirms it's the right branch to have it
@Pogman42
If people want to abolish the Electoral College, go for it
But it requires 2/3 of the House + 2/3 of the Senate + 3/4 of state legislatures. It's not an attainable goal, and will not be an attainable goal in our lifetimes
Meanwhile, that energy could be better used elsewhere
It\u2019s just weird to me that we\u2019re able to elect senators and congressman themselves without this level of confusion but the electors create some kind of unique challenge requiring resolution by congress in some instances
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) January 3, 2021
Likely unconstitutional, and unenforceable even if it were not
What about the NPVIC? https://t.co/arg8V3QPih
— Phil Traum (@TraumPhil) January 3, 2021
No requirement to use the whole 2 hours
@greg_doucette sure you've answered this question somewhere down the line but is there a 2 hour recess for EACH objection or are all objections handled under one 2 hour recess?
— ReediculousS (@Rbd9787) January 3, 2021
Doubt it. I think you'll get maybe an hour with Arizona so Congresscritters can get their viral C-SPAN clips, then they'll get bored with it and move on
So we are looking at 24 hours of debate then?
— Subtle Clever Username (@Noneya_Mindyers) January 3, 2021
Correct
And each person only gets 5 minutes to speak (also probably per objection), so the long-winded halfwits (Gohmert) won't be able to drag it out very long.
— Mithras Angel (place blue checkmark here) (@mithrasangel) January 3, 2021
The Speaker and the Vice President preside over their respective chambers like normal, then decide who talks
Who gets discretion on who talks. Is It just objectors or counterpoints may also be allotted time?
— WillisisCray (@WillisisCray) January 3, 2021
I'd need to go through whatever rules the House adopts tomorrow, they're not my forte
can pelosi just ignore everybody
— Michael Durkin (@mdurkin86) January 3, 2021