Marjorie Taylor Greene

Lerxst1992 said:

Liberal activists doing their best to sue to disqualify Marj from running for re-election. A similar case was already lost in NC, so this seems likely headed to SCOTUS. I could see Roberts voting with the libs and losing 5-4, so the Court would then confirm that an insurrectionist can run for Congress or even President. Wonder if Roberts feels any culpability letting the extremist horses loose from the barn.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-candidacy-challenge-lawsuit/index.html

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Liberal activists doing their best to sue to disqualify Marj from running for re-election. A similar case was already lost in NC, so this seems likely headed to SCOTUS. I could see Roberts voting with the libs and losing 5-4, so the Court would then confirm that an insurrectionist can run for Congress or even President. Wonder if Roberts feels any culpability letting the extremist horses loose from the barn.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-candidacy-challenge-lawsuit/index.html

I can’t stand MtG, but I think that’s a terrible idea. Unless someone was convicted of a crime or impeached. If you let courts and politicians decide who can run then that defeats the purpose of an election. Let the people vote. Don’t like her, then put up a better candidate to run against her.

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Liberal activists doing their best to sue to disqualify Marj from running for re-election. A similar case was already lost in NC, so this seems likely headed to SCOTUS. I could see Roberts voting with the libs and losing 5-4, so the Court would then confirm that an insurrectionist can run for Congress or even President. Wonder if Roberts feels any culpability letting the extremist horses loose from the barn.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-candidacy-challenge-lawsuit/index.html

I can’t stand MtG, but I think that’s a terrible idea. Unless someone was convicted of a crime or impeached. If you let courts and politicians decide who can run then that defeats the purpose of an election. Let the people vote. Don’t like her, then put up a better candidate to run against her.

read the 14th amendment in full.

This is a tricky topic because one could argue that most of what Team Trump did was advancing crackpot legal theories that had no chance under a judicial microscope.  Only if you could prove that they intentionally organized and unleashed the mob AND MTG was aware and part of that conspiracy, would it be disqualifying.  

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Liberal activists doing their best to sue to disqualify Marj from running for re-election. A similar case was already lost in NC, so this seems likely headed to SCOTUS. I could see Roberts voting with the libs and losing 5-4, so the Court would then confirm that an insurrectionist can run for Congress or even President. Wonder if Roberts feels any culpability letting the extremist horses loose from the barn.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-candidacy-challenge-lawsuit/index.html

I can’t stand MtG, but I think that’s a terrible idea. Unless someone was convicted of a crime or impeached. If you let courts and politicians decide who can run then that defeats the purpose of an election. Let the people vote. Don’t like her, then put up a better candidate to run against her.

read the 14th amendment in full.

This is a tricky topic because one could argue that most of what Team Trump did was advancing crackpot legal theories that had no chance under a judicial microscope.  Only if you could prove that they intentionally organized and unleashed the mob AND MTG was aware and part of that conspiracy, would it be disqualifying.  

I believe the one rep alwrted police that mtg may have been of of the reps leading tours on jan 5. if any of those folks seen on footage from jan 5 then entered on jan 6, logical argument is mtg helped them.

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Liberal activists doing their best to sue to disqualify Marj from running for re-election. A similar case was already lost in NC, so this seems likely headed to SCOTUS. I could see Roberts voting with the libs and losing 5-4, so the Court would then confirm that an insurrectionist can run for Congress or even President. Wonder if Roberts feels any culpability letting the extremist horses loose from the barn.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-candidacy-challenge-lawsuit/index.html

I can’t stand MtG, but I think that’s a terrible idea. Unless someone was convicted of a crime or impeached. If you let courts and politicians decide who can run then that defeats the purpose of an election. Let the people vote. Don’t like her, then put up a better candidate to run against her.

read the 14th amendment in full.

This is a tricky topic because one could argue that most of what Team Trump did was advancing crackpot legal theories that had no chance under a judicial microscope.  Only if you could prove that they intentionally organized and unleashed the mob AND MTG was aware and part of that conspiracy, would it be disqualifying.  

I believe the one rep alwrted police that mtg may have been of of the reps leading tours on jan 5. if any of those folks seen on footage from jan 5 then entered on jan 6, logical argument is mtg helped them.

logical, but not necessarily beyond a reasonable doubt.  Was it a scouting mission and was she aware of that?  I'm just saying, what we believe and what can be proved are different. 

plain language of 14 doesnt make that distinction. so the originalist court would in theory need to rule her out.

would also point out the "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a consideration for criminal proceedings but civil realm has a less strict burden to meet.

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Liberal activists doing their best to sue to disqualify Marj from running for re-election. A similar case was already lost in NC, so this seems likely headed to SCOTUS. I could see Roberts voting with the libs and losing 5-4, so the Court would then confirm that an insurrectionist can run for Congress or even President. Wonder if Roberts feels any culpability letting the extremist horses loose from the barn.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-candidacy-challenge-lawsuit/index.html

I can’t stand MtG, but I think that’s a terrible idea. Unless someone was convicted of a crime or impeached. If you let courts and politicians decide who can run then that defeats the purpose of an election. Let the people vote. Don’t like her, then put up a better candidate to run against her.

read the 14th amendment in full.

This is a tricky topic because one could argue that most of what Team Trump did was advancing crackpot legal theories that had no chance under a judicial microscope.  Only if you could prove that they intentionally organized and unleashed the mob AND MTG was aware and part of that conspiracy, would it be disqualifying.  

I believe the one rep alwrted police that mtg may have been of of the reps leading tours on jan 5. if any of those folks seen on footage from jan 5 then entered on jan 6, logical argument is mtg helped them.

logical, but not necessarily beyond a reasonable doubt.  Was it a scouting mission and was she aware of that?  I'm just saying, what we believe and what can be proved are different. 

plain language of 14 doesnt make that distinction. so the originalist court would in theory need to rule her out.

would also point out the "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a consideration for criminal proceedings but civil realm has a less strict burden to meet.

But there's no definition of what it means to engage in insurrection.  So that needs to be litigated.  I'm just saying it feels like a high hurdle. 

well surely there is a mechanism to stop these fucktards without relying an electorate that is passively ignorant, willfully militant or just trolling for a lark.

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Liberal activists doing their best to sue to disqualify Marj from running for re-election. A similar case was already lost in NC, so this seems likely headed to SCOTUS. I could see Roberts voting with the libs and losing 5-4, so the Court would then confirm that an insurrectionist can run for Congress or even President. Wonder if Roberts feels any culpability letting the extremist horses loose from the barn.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-candidacy-challenge-lawsuit/index.html

I can’t stand MtG, but I think that’s a terrible idea. Unless someone was convicted of a crime or impeached. If you let courts and politicians decide who can run then that defeats the purpose of an election. Let the people vote. Don’t like her, then put up a better candidate to run against her.

read the 14th amendment in full.

This is a tricky topic because one could argue that most of what Team Trump did was advancing crackpot legal theories that had no chance under a judicial microscope.  Only if you could prove that they intentionally organized and unleashed the mob AND MTG was aware and part of that conspiracy, would it be disqualifying.  

I believe the one rep alwrted police that mtg may have been of of the reps leading tours on jan 5. if any of those folks seen on footage from jan 5 then entered on jan 6, logical argument is mtg helped them.

logical, but not necessarily beyond a reasonable doubt.  Was it a scouting mission and was she aware of that?  I'm just saying, what we believe and what can be proved are different. 

plain language of 14 doesnt make that distinction. so the originalist court would in theory need to rule her out.

would also point out the "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a consideration for criminal proceedings but civil realm has a less strict burden to meet.

But there's no definition of what it means to engage in insurrection.  So that needs to be litigated.  I'm just saying it feels like a high hurdle. 

well surely there is a mechanism to stop these fucktards without relying an electorate that is passively ignorant, willfully militant or just trolling for a lark.

I'm no legal scholar, but my best guess is that there is not such a mechanism.

The House can vote to refuse to seat her.  I think that's a 2/3 majority, not sure.  But that can be for any member, for any reason. 

Bentleyspop said:

https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1513637767259037698?t=J94NrA4ovM7IY_FNzWPZIg&s=19

Bentleyspop said:

https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1513637767259037698?t=J94NrA4ovM7IY_FNzWPZIg&s=19

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Bentleyspop said:

https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1513637767259037698?t=J94NrA4ovM7IY_FNzWPZIg&s=19

And of course what she is really saying is, "The US should stop sending military aid to Ukraine and let them be invaded because Russia will “inevitably” win because my flock loves Putin and they know I am grate and Trump is grate and autocracy is grate and Democrasy sucks and being intelligent and educated is stoopid and spelling sucks."

They're is know doubt your write on the spelling part.