GOP congressman flails as CNN host corners him for objecting to the election results https://t.co/bfEDAcAdf7— Raw Story (@RawStory) January 21, 2021
Try to follow the reasoning here:
"Absolutely," said Giminez. "And the message I'm sending to the American people is that individual people shouldn't be changing the rules. Courts are not going to overrule an election. They are hesitant to do that. We need to make sure the rules are established by, as the Constitution said, by the state legislatures, not individual people. Because if we continue to change the rules, and either just before or during elections, you're going to have people with questions about those elections, we need to stop that."
"Individual people shouldn't be changing the rules." Except the rules that were changed...well, it's in the interview:
"You objected to Pennsylvania and Arizona, two states where the states' supreme courts said the processes in which the election had changed, right, because of COVID, were legitimate," said Harlow. "And they are the deciding bodies and all 50 states had certified the election results again, so I'm wondering why you did it. Did it not just help promote the big lie that Biden didn't legitimately win?"
"No," said Giminez. "We're trying to make sure that individual people and not the state legislatures, all right, the state legislatures are the only one that could set the rules and methods by which the electors are selected. Individual people changed the rules just before or during the election, that needs—"
"And the Supreme Court said it was legitimate to do so," said Harlow. "I'm trying to get at what you were trying to achieve because the vote, and what did you after the Capitol was attacked and five people died, matters a lot in the message you're sending to the American people."
State Supreme Courts, like the federal one, are not "individual people." It's a bench of several judges, who must agree, at least a majority, before a ruling has any force and effect. 50 states certified the election in their respective states; again, not "individual people," except insofar was the states have authorized agencies in those states to make those certifications. "And the Supreme Court said it was legitimate to do so," that is, for courts to allow modifications of election law harmonious with precedent and the Constitution.
Do you really see any fascism here? Except in the House and Senate, where 7 Senators and 135, or more, House members, decided their individual choices, should change the rules. Fewer than that, actually, because the law allows only one Representative and one Senator to object to any electoral slate. Individual people shouldn't be changing the rules; except when they should. And when those changes serve the political interests of the individuals trying to change the rules.
I know the analysis doesn't fit on a bumper sticker; but frankly, neither does the challenge. In America we generally trust the system; and those who don't, storm the Capitol. Which prompts the system to react, and reinforce for the rest of us why we trust the system; especially over individual people trying to change the rules.