Former Representative Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) labeled Senator JD Vance (R-Ohio) as unfit for office following his comments on the 2020 presidential election certification. Vance, speaking on ABC’s “This Week,” had stated he would have supported sending multiple slates of electors to Congress post-2020 election—a move Cheney vehemently opposed on X (formerly Twitter). She accused Vance of endorsing actions that could undermine the democratic foundations of the United States, pointing to a willingness to sidestep established legal norms and the Constitution’s mandates, according to The Hill.
Vance’s remarks not only questioned the 2020 election’s integrity but also suggested a broader readiness to challenge the Supreme Court’s authority. By referencing historical defiance against the judiciary, Vance implicitly aligned himself with a contentious view of executive power over legal rulings. This perspective, advocating for the president’s right to ignore what he deems “illegitimate” Supreme Court decisions, directly confronts the checks and balances principle critical to American governance.
Cheney’s rebuke of Vance illuminates a deeper ideological rift within the Republican Party, especially concerning the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot and the broader implications for electoral integrity and the rule of law. Her criticism transcends the specifics of Vance’s comments, touching upon the fundamental values governing political conduct and responsibility in the U.S. This discourse reflects not just a clash over electoral certification but a significant debate over the underpinnings of American democracy itself.
The exchange between Cheney and Vance thus becomes a microcosm of the larger, ongoing discussions on power limits, the judiciary’s role, and the importance of upholding democratic principles even in the face of political and ideological conflict.