Tuesday, January 05, 2021

Meh.

John Cornyn tries to eat his cake and have it, too.

Cornyn weasels on the election outcome, blaming Democrats for the "idea of questioning the legitimacy of an election," when that idea clearly and bluntly came from Trump (he started announcing its illegitimacy before the election although, as many courts noted, he didn't put his money where his mouth was by going to court until long after the election.  That's where the doctrine of laches tripped him up.  Whatever evidence of illegitimacy Trump allegedly had, he lost his opportunity to present it by sitting on his claims, claims that he says are only legitimate because he lost.  Especially in election cases, it simply doesn't work that way.)

Cornyn weasels again on the subject of challenges:

These challenges must be decided on the merits and nothing else.  The Constitution and federal law give us a road map to follow and we should follow it.  But allegations alone will not suffice.  Evidence is required.

Let's go statement by statement through that turning point in his argument:  "These challenges must be decided on the merits and nothing else."  And what is the Constitutional forum (the "road map" he mentions in the next sentence) for deciding such challenges?  The courts.  Which have decided the merits of these claims.  60 cases and 90 judges (Cornyn cites only 50, for reasons obscure to me) have ruled.  These questions are as dead as Marley and the door nail.  Cornyn, a lawyer and former Texas Supreme Court Justice, knows that as well as any Senator in the Senate.

"The Constitution and federal law give us a road map to follow and we should follow it."  In other words:  "Game over, man!  Game over!"  Based solely on what I just pointed out about the 60 court cases and the 90 judges.

"But allegations alone will not suffice."  No, they shouldn't.  But Congress is not a forum for presenting evidence, and no Senator or Representative in the joint session or in separate sessions of each House can present any evidence to support their allegations.  They can at best present affidavits, but affidavits are not evidence.  If I sign an affidavit swearing the moon is made of green cheese and a Senator presents that on the Senate floor as proof the moon is made of green cheese, is that evidence the moon is made of green cheese?  If it is, our legislative process is a sham and a farce.  Evidence in Congress comes from hearings, and hearings are not possible or even necessary in this matter.  There are no competing slates of electors, there is no question of who won the majority of electors, there is no outstanding legal question that the courts have deferred to Congress on in this matter.  The role of Congress is simple here:  conduct the ceremony that puts the imprimatur of the people's representatives on the people's choice of President.  That's all that is required on Wednesday.  It's a formality, and nothing more.  The 12th Amendment and the ECA are for where there is a real and substantive conflict.  It's not to allow the loser a "Hail Mary" final chance at snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.  If you really want to be  a defender of democracy and the Republic, Senator, you would acknowledge that.

"Evidence is required."  Yes, yes it is.  But that won't be presented to the Congress by Representatives or Senators, so what are we doing here?

He ends on a grand rhetorical flourish about defending democracy and saving the republic, but that elevates the stature of Congress in this matter beyond where it should be.  It is Congress that is endangering democracy and threatening the republic in the first place.  Do we praise the arsonist for calling the fire department?

Cornyn weasels again by citing the objection of a "Democratic Senator" in 2005.  True, but that objection was not concurred by a member of the House, so it went nowhere and was of no force or effect.  This time is different, and yet Sen. Cornyn will only say he won't vote to refuse Joe Biden his legal victory.  Brave, brave Sir Robin.

And, conveniently, we can compare and contrast:

"My job on Wednesday is clear, and there are only two things I am permitted to do under the Constutiton: ensure the electors are properly certified and count the electoral votes, even when I disagree with the outcome."

I almost never agree with Sen. Inhofe, but here he is exactly right.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)