By
The Republican Party’s 2024 race has advanced to a familiar phase. In every presidential election cycle, ambitious players try to position themselves for running-mate consideration, which can be difficult to watch as assorted politicians effectively audition in public.
Sen. J.D. Vance appears to be engaged in just such a process.
It’s not a secret that the Ohio Republican, with a whopping one year of experience in public office, is in the mix as Donald Trump eyes possible vice presidential nominees. Axios reported a couple of weeks ago that Vance “is on Trump’s VP shortlist.”
With this in mind, the GOP lawmaker — who used to be a fierce critic of Trump, before overhauling his political persona — sat down with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, presumably hoping to impress a certain former president and his campaign team.
As part of the interview, the “This Week” host asked about Trump being held liable for defaming and sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll, prompting Vance to downplay the significance of jurors from “extremely left-wing jurisdictions.” When Stephanopoulos asked whether New Yorkers' legal verdicts could be considered fair, Vance added, “Well, when the cases are funded by left-wing donors and when the case has absolute left-wing bias all over it, George, absolutely I think that we should call into question that particular conclusion.”
In other words, the Ohioan suggested that he’ll take juries seriously, but not if they’re in cities he doesn’t like.
In the same interview, Stephanopoulos reminded his guest of a 2021 podcast in which Vance suggested that Trump can and should defy court rulings. Evidently, the Ohioan hasn’t changed his mind.
“The Constitution says that the Supreme Court can make rulings, but if the Supreme Court ― and look, I hope that they would not do this ― but if the Supreme Court said that the president of the United States can’t fire a general, that would be an illegitimate ruling and the president has to have Article 2 prerogative under the Constitution to actually run the military as he sees fit,” Vance said, suggesting politicians should decide which court rulings are and are not “legitimate.”
But I was especially interested in an exchange in which the ABC News host asked, more than once, whether Vance would’ve agreed to certify the 2020 presidential election had he been the vice president at the time. It led to this answer:
"If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, and so many others that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there. That is the legitimate way to deal with an election that a lot of folks, including me, think had a lot of problems in 2020. I think that’s what we should have done."
At first blush, the obvious problem with such a position is that the senator — a Yale law school graduate — basically told a national television audience that he would’ve participated in a coup plot, exercising powers he did not have, and rejecting the legal process following a free and fair election.
But that’s not all. As Politico’s Kyle Cheney added, “This would’ve been a particularly egregious breach of the law considering no state legislature had even sent alternative electors. This goes even beyond what John Eastman was proposing.”
Watching House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik go in ridiculous directions, I recently made the case that no one should want to be vice president this badly. The same thesis came to mind during Vance’s ABC News appearance.