So first of all, let's see what they're asking for. An expedited decision on the case, and permanent injunctive relief (i.e. an order directing Pence how to act when counting electoral votes) and they want it by Thursday the 31st. The second two screenshots are the local rule
They do not, however, explain why 12/31 is the magic date (when the acts they're worrying about would be on 1/6), and there's a slight logistical problem in asking for a schedule that requires a ruling on a motion in 3 days when you HAVEN'T YET BOTHERED TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT
Note: This is a new litigation seeking a declaratory judgment that the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional in that it conflicts with the 12th Amendment.
Here's the entire 12th Amendment. Pay attention to the highlighting and follow along
Here's the 12A process
1) "The Electors" meet, vote, and transmit their lists of votes to the President of the Senate 2) The PoS SHALL open the certificates and count the votes 3) Whoever has a majority wins 4) If nobody has a majority after counting, the House delegations vote
The conspiracy wing of the GOP is going to keep pumping out these "Ten Neat Tricks to steal an election [number 8 will shock you!]" articles straight through the inauguration. (Yes - don't expect this to stop after the electoral votes are counted)
None of it is real. None of it has any legal basis. It's fantasy written by fantasists for coping MAGA-ites who find reality just too painful to accept. Ignore it.
Seth has blocked me. But you all should see this anyway. Aside from Seth's prior admissions that he sees "metamodernism" as a way of "lying things into being" (see his post-Hillary nomination piece from 2016), his post-hoc justification for lying to you
Is that he's just "brainstorming". But it's easy to do that without abusing your trust and lying to you about what the law *is*. When Seth says things like "a pardon is invalid if it's obstructing impeachment" he isn't "brainstorming" - he's making a foundational claim about the
law that is simply false. It would have been easy enough to come clean and say "I'd like it if we reinterpret the relevant provisions to mean...", acknowledged the contrary precedent, and reckoned with it. That's someone arguing for a change in the law
Here's what the Pardon Clause says: the President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
It does NOT say "except where the offense is relevant to the impeachment of someone else" or "except where the pardon will obstruct someone else's impeachment"
In the cold light of morning, I'm still completely amazed by the legal belly flop that @ThomasMoreSoc filed in the DC District Court. It's the legal equivalent of watching the butt fumble, live
EVERYTHING you could possibly get wrong in a complaint, they managed
Start with the plaintiffs. The ONLY claims in the lawsuit are that the Constitution gives state legislatures the right to set the manner of elections, which they have allegedly (we'll get to this insanity) failed to do.
There's oodles of caselaw saying "since that's a right of the state legislature, only state legislatures, as a body, can bring such a claim"