There IS precedent, as the other commenter said. As the head of the Senate, it's squarely in his duties to resolve disputes at that level, if he's willing to take the heat.
He might be the person to resolve a disagreement between the House and the Senate if they're split. Power to unilaterally elect himself and POTUS is a massive stretch.
I still say they really have nothing to lose by trying anyway. If SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this, who's going to say what is or isn't legal?
(copypaste from my last reply since you raised the exact same concern.) And that's the point that will be argued endlessly if Pence acts, and his rationale for not acting if he declines to do so. He's within his rights to resolve the dispute in this manner in the strict sense of it. That will never satisfy our opponents because, in this case, that dispute happens to determine the outcome of the election. Nonetheless, the rule is the rule, and there is no rigid rule I'm aware of that requires him to recuse himself, however much the left may try to say he must.
And that's the point that will be argued endlessly if he acts. He's within his rights to resolve the dispute in this manner in the strict sense of it. That will never satisfy our opponents because, in this case, that dispute happens to determine the outcome of the election. Nonetheless, the rule is the rule, and there is no rigid rule I'm aware of that requires him to recuse himself, however much the left may try to say he must.
There IS precedent, as the other commenter said. As the head of the Senate, it's squarely in his duties to resolve disputes at that level, if he's willing to take the heat.
He might be the person to resolve a disagreement between the House and the Senate if they're split. Power to unilaterally elect himself and POTUS is a massive stretch.
I still say they really have nothing to lose by trying anyway. If SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this, who's going to say what is or isn't legal?
(copypaste from my last reply since you raised the exact same concern.) And that's the point that will be argued endlessly if Pence acts, and his rationale for not acting if he declines to do so. He's within his rights to resolve the dispute in this manner in the strict sense of it. That will never satisfy our opponents because, in this case, that dispute happens to determine the outcome of the election. Nonetheless, the rule is the rule, and there is no rigid rule I'm aware of that requires him to recuse himself, however much the left may try to say he must.
And that's the point that will be argued endlessly if he acts. He's within his rights to resolve the dispute in this manner in the strict sense of it. That will never satisfy our opponents because, in this case, that dispute happens to determine the outcome of the election. Nonetheless, the rule is the rule, and there is no rigid rule I'm aware of that requires him to recuse himself, however much the left may try to say he must.