Nemo iudex in causa sua and US administrative law

[Hnv1]

Well, I have to say I'm slightly perplexed. I'm a lawyer in a common law system and Nemo iudex in causa sua is a pretty basic principle and cause for judicial intervention (with ultra vires). Yet it seems no one thinks the court can grant relief against Pence if he will act in a biased way.

Is there any special reason why it seems discretion over constitutional powers is not subject to the principles of natural justice? i.e. why wouldn't a US court just nullify any action taken with bias?

[Skill and Chance]

It’s potentially a separation of powers issue.  Beyond that I am not sure.

[brucejoel99]

Something something political question, (or) something something self-serving, navel-gazing "textualist" belief that the words of the Constitution overrule the principle regardless of whether or not the Framers even contemplated as much.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To begin with, if Pence were to act in such a way, then Congress would be the place to begin remedying the act. However, it appears now that Trump's hopes that he can browbeat Republicans into stealing the election for him have not only failed, but likely contributed to the Democrats gaining control of the Senate come January 20 (assuming the two Georgia Senators are seated by Inauguration Day).

I don't expect Pence to do anything other than allow the procedural objections a few crazed Republicans will use to delay the completion of the electoral vote tally to go forward to be defeated.

[Hnv1]

To begin with, if Pence were to act in such a way, then Congress would be the place to begin remedying the act. However, it appears now that Trump's hopes that he can browbeat Republicans into stealing the election for him have not only failed, but likely contributed to the Democrats gaining control of the Senate come January 20 (assuming the two Georgia Senators are seated by Inauguration Day).

I don't expect Pence to do anything other than allow the procedural objections a few crazed Republicans will use to delay the completion of the electoral vote tally to go forward to be defeated.

I’m aware of the politics here, but it seems to me that there would be no room for such discussion if we acknowledged one cannot exercise discretion where he is the subject matter of the decision. It’s one of the core principles of public discretion in the common law. I’m merely perplexed on why it’s not so straightforward legally in American law.