![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
2016 to 1876
Jan. 6th, 2021 07:03 pmWhat a dark day in American history. To sum up the events so far:
Vice President Pence put forward a statement rejecting both the absurd legal theory that the VP can appoint the next President and Vice President unilaterally, and the absurd legal theory that Congress can't object to alleged certifications of electoral votes ever. Both straw arguments, except some Republican legislatures were literally arguing the former. Then he kicked off the usual ceremony.
Republicans objected to the electoral vote in Arizona, then made bizarre arguments that state election law should be exempt from judicial review, and that the remedy for state courts being involved in elections at all is to throw those entire elections into the trash. Seemed to slide a bit into implying that states should do away with elections altogether, and go back to having the President appointed by state legislatures.
McConnell gave a speech indicating he wasn't having any of it, correctly noting that overturning the election in this way would destroy American democracy. Of course, the speech was filled with egregious both-sides-ing, Democrats' few protest votes in the context of electoral vote certification were not serious efforts to overturn the election, and were not in the context of an incumbent President refusing to concede and running a prolonged effort to deny the election result. McConnell is an expert player at Constitutional hardball, he plays to win the system, not to destroy it. That is, he doesn't have the votes, don't take his speech to mean he wouldn't go for it if he thought it would work. But he also doesn't want Republican voters turning against the Electoral College, for example. Also, he must be incandescently angry at Trump after those Georgia results.
Ted Cruz suggested that since Congress doesn't have the votes to overturn the election, maybe they could appoint an electoral commission with five members each from the Senate (majority Republican), House (majority Democratic), and Supreme Court (majority Republican). So that they can overturn the election 8-7, presumably. Ted Cruz thinks everyone listening is stupid and will be persuaded by "some Democrats and independents also think the election is 'rigged'". They might not all be aligned on how it's rigged, and more relevantly, literally no one sane thinks Ted Cruz would be pursuing this concern if Trump had won the election by a single vote. This is just the schoolyard bully tactic, if they win they win, if they lose then suddenly only "a redo" is fair ad infinitum. Here you get a redo, win or lose, in four years.
There are some other problems with pursuing the 1876 strategy. First, that was a disaster. Second, that was actually a disputed election. This is not an election where any state government is divided about its election results, for all that Republicans are spreading FUD to imply that is the case. Third, the procedure Congress is currently following was implemented later to avoid that happening again. (To be clear, to the extent that a majority in both houses of Congress can just do whatever and appoint the next President and Vice President in the absence of any substantive doubt about states' electoral votes, that law is unconstitutional. But no one's previously tried to do that.)
Then, the President of the United States literally incited a riot, and a mob, some armed, stormed the US Capitol, interrupting the proceedings. I'm serious about that incitement bit, Trump was pushing for, and got, imminent lawless action. (And Giuliani managed to be both more farcical and more incendiary.) Trump eventually did some nods at walking things back, but his idea of walking things back involves a quick nod to the desire for peace and order followed by reiterating lies that the election was stolen and urging his base to never let go.
The Republicans have gone out of their way to turn a 2016 situation (people lost an election and are upset) into a 1876 situation (a serious constitutional crisis with lasting consequences that we are feeling, like, right now). With the side-note that in 2016 there was the issue that the winning candidate was far outside of the political mainstream for some deadly serious reasons (cf various aspects of our current situation).
While today was worse than I expected so far, I wasn't (and I'm still not) that worried that Republicans would end the Republic today. Sometimes, though, even with a farce you need to worry about what might come after.
(One quirk of our Constitution is that the President can pardon offenses against all of the laws in DC. Kind of expecting Trump will issue a blanket pardon to his mob, followed by the sale of "official recipient of a Presidential pardon" merchandise.)
Vice President Pence put forward a statement rejecting both the absurd legal theory that the VP can appoint the next President and Vice President unilaterally, and the absurd legal theory that Congress can't object to alleged certifications of electoral votes ever. Both straw arguments, except some Republican legislatures were literally arguing the former. Then he kicked off the usual ceremony.
Republicans objected to the electoral vote in Arizona, then made bizarre arguments that state election law should be exempt from judicial review, and that the remedy for state courts being involved in elections at all is to throw those entire elections into the trash. Seemed to slide a bit into implying that states should do away with elections altogether, and go back to having the President appointed by state legislatures.
McConnell gave a speech indicating he wasn't having any of it, correctly noting that overturning the election in this way would destroy American democracy. Of course, the speech was filled with egregious both-sides-ing, Democrats' few protest votes in the context of electoral vote certification were not serious efforts to overturn the election, and were not in the context of an incumbent President refusing to concede and running a prolonged effort to deny the election result. McConnell is an expert player at Constitutional hardball, he plays to win the system, not to destroy it. That is, he doesn't have the votes, don't take his speech to mean he wouldn't go for it if he thought it would work. But he also doesn't want Republican voters turning against the Electoral College, for example. Also, he must be incandescently angry at Trump after those Georgia results.
Ted Cruz suggested that since Congress doesn't have the votes to overturn the election, maybe they could appoint an electoral commission with five members each from the Senate (majority Republican), House (majority Democratic), and Supreme Court (majority Republican). So that they can overturn the election 8-7, presumably. Ted Cruz thinks everyone listening is stupid and will be persuaded by "some Democrats and independents also think the election is 'rigged'". They might not all be aligned on how it's rigged, and more relevantly, literally no one sane thinks Ted Cruz would be pursuing this concern if Trump had won the election by a single vote. This is just the schoolyard bully tactic, if they win they win, if they lose then suddenly only "a redo" is fair ad infinitum. Here you get a redo, win or lose, in four years.
There are some other problems with pursuing the 1876 strategy. First, that was a disaster. Second, that was actually a disputed election. This is not an election where any state government is divided about its election results, for all that Republicans are spreading FUD to imply that is the case. Third, the procedure Congress is currently following was implemented later to avoid that happening again. (To be clear, to the extent that a majority in both houses of Congress can just do whatever and appoint the next President and Vice President in the absence of any substantive doubt about states' electoral votes, that law is unconstitutional. But no one's previously tried to do that.)
Then, the President of the United States literally incited a riot, and a mob, some armed, stormed the US Capitol, interrupting the proceedings. I'm serious about that incitement bit, Trump was pushing for, and got, imminent lawless action. (And Giuliani managed to be both more farcical and more incendiary.) Trump eventually did some nods at walking things back, but his idea of walking things back involves a quick nod to the desire for peace and order followed by reiterating lies that the election was stolen and urging his base to never let go.
The Republicans have gone out of their way to turn a 2016 situation (people lost an election and are upset) into a 1876 situation (a serious constitutional crisis with lasting consequences that we are feeling, like, right now). With the side-note that in 2016 there was the issue that the winning candidate was far outside of the political mainstream for some deadly serious reasons (cf various aspects of our current situation).
While today was worse than I expected so far, I wasn't (and I'm still not) that worried that Republicans would end the Republic today. Sometimes, though, even with a farce you need to worry about what might come after.
(One quirk of our Constitution is that the President can pardon offenses against all of the laws in DC. Kind of expecting Trump will issue a blanket pardon to his mob, followed by the sale of "official recipient of a Presidential pardon" merchandise.)
