• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Challenge to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's re-election bid can proceed, judge rules

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
52,409
Reaction score
36,999
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal

A federal judge in Georgia is allowing a lawsuit challenging Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's qualifications to run for re-election to move forward.

U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg on Monday denied the Georgia Republican's request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block the suit. Free Speech for People, an election and campaign finance reform organization, filed the lawsuit last month on behalf of a group of the state's voters, alleging Greene facilitated the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Pointing to the 14th Amendment's prohibition on anyone who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from running for federal or state office, the suit alleges Greene is ineligible to run because she engaged in obstructing the transfer of presidential power, in part through her rhetoric challenging the election results.

Good. Treasonists have no place in Congress. (y)
 

mrjurrs

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
25,295
Reaction score
12,563
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive

Rawley

Sedition Apologist™ and Charter Cult Member™
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
24,010
Reaction score
7,658
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
34,126
Reaction score
17,008
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You're probably not going to be happy with the precedent this case sets.
why?

It would be cleaner for the voters just to vote her out of office and elect someone else.
 

Callen

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
21,426
Reaction score
22,327
Location
Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I can't imagine they win this suit. She has not been charged with any acts of instruction that I know of. Seems like this is cart before horse. All it will do is rev up her base and likely get her re-elected. Sad is that people actually want people like this to represent them.
 

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
52,409
Reaction score
36,999
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I can't imagine they win this suit. She has not been charged with any acts of instruction that I know of. Seems like this is cart before horse. All it will do is rev up her base and likely get her re-elected. Sad is that people actually want people like this to represent them.

That doesn't matter. What matters is whether she's constitutionally eligible to run.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,546
Reaction score
13,990
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist



Good. Treasonists have no place in Congress. (y)
The Plaintiffs have established that they have SOME case to make - not that their case is more likely than not to succeed.

However, it will be interesting to see what line of defence the Defendant (well, actually, her lawyers) comes up with. If it gets much past "The President said that it was OK to do it, so it can't be illegal." (or, possibly, "I knew that there was absolutely no chance that it would succeed so the "de minimus" rule applies.") I will be greatly surprised.
 

Nomad4Ever

The tolerant left? I'm the intolerant left.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
8,323
Reaction score
10,270
Location
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The Fourteenth Amendment is very clear about forbidding insurrectionists from Congress.
"You....you won't like precedent this case sets!"

What? The precedent of insurrectionists not holding public office? I don't know about you @Phys251 but I think that's a pretty OK precedent lol
 

Rawley

Sedition Apologist™ and Charter Cult Member™
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
24,010
Reaction score
7,658
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Because the court is going to find that none of her actions constituted acts of insurrection or rebellion under the 14th amendment.

If you can't nail a loon like MTG, you are certainly not going to get others like Trump or Jim Jordan or ...

It would be cleaner for the voters just to vote her out of office and elect someone else.

Liberal/Progressives/Democrats know they are going to get crushed in the elections in November and are resorting to bullshit stunts like this.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,546
Reaction score
13,990
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Fourteenth Amendment is very clear about forbidding insurrectionists from Congress.
If you lead a coup that replaces one government with another that has the same people as members of the Legislative and Judicial branches while operating under the same name and according to the same laws, have you "overthrown" the government? Because "overthrowing" the government (and replacing it with a completely new one) is a necessary ingredient for an "insurrection".

Otherwise all you have is a "coup d'etat" and there is no black letter law in the US constitutionally prohibiting "coups d'etat".

PS - As a no longer practicing attorney and former legislative and constitutional drafter, I still find that "weasel words" can be one hell of a lot of fun.
 

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
52,409
Reaction score
36,999
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
If you lead a coup that replaces one government with another that has the same people as members of the Legislative and Judicial branches while operating under the same name and according to the same laws, have you "overthrown" the government? Because "overthrowing" the government (and replacing it with a completely new one) is a necessary ingredient for an "insurrection".

Otherwise all you have is a "coup d'etat" and there is no black letter law in the US constitutionally prohibiting "coups d'etat".

PS - As a no longer practicing attorney and former legislative and constitutional drafter, I still find that "weasel words" can be one hell of a lot of fun.

You'll have to take up that level of hair-splitting with the courts.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,546
Reaction score
13,990
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That doesn't matter. What matters is whether she's constitutionally eligible to run.
Since this is a CIVIL action, whether or not Mr. Taylor-Green has been "charged" with anything (let alone convicted) is totally irrelevant.

The standard of proof is NOT "beyond a reasonable doubt", but rather it is "on the balance of probabilities" and the "trial" of whether or not Ms. Taylor-Green actually did the deeds alleged is going to be the trial of this particular action.

To make the matter somewhat clearer, OJ Simpson was found to have killed his wife in a CIVIL action even though he was NOT found to have killed his wife in a CRIMINAL action and his acquittal in the CRIMINAL action was of no relevance in the CIVIL action (admittedly that judicial finding would have rendered the question of whether or not it was "more likely than not" to have killed his wife "res judicata" (a matter already determined and not subject to re-litigation)).
 

Callen

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
21,426
Reaction score
22,327
Location
Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
That doesn't matter. What matters is whether she's constitutionally eligible to run.
I don't understand. Doesn't it have to be decided that she in fact did something that makes her constitutionally ineligible to run? Who gets to decide that? Not defending her, can't stand her...just curious.
 

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
52,409
Reaction score
36,999
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I don't understand. Doesn't it have to be decided that she in fact did something that makes her constitutionally ineligible to run? Who gets to decide that? Not defending her, can't stand her...just curious.

All of that is up to the courts.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
87,005
Reaction score
57,199
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Well I wouldn't really hold my breath over any of it.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,546
Reaction score
13,990
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
You'll have to take up that level of hair-splitting with the courts.
As someone who once argued that their client was not in violation of the laws prohibiting "keeping wrecked vehicles" on their property because their client's property did not abutt the seashore and the state had not produced any evidence that the vehicles had come from a shipwreck, I'm OK with that.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,546
Reaction score
13,990
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist

Callen

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
21,426
Reaction score
22,327
Location
Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Indeed it does, and that is what THIS court case is all about.

The trier of fact in THIS court case.

Understandable.

I think you are saying that this court is empowered to determine that she was likely involved in an insurrection and therefore ineligible. I had not looked at it that way.....very interesting. I was thinking first she must be found guilty of involvement......
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
34,126
Reaction score
17,008
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because the court is going to find that none of her actions constituted acts of insurrection or rebellion under the 14th amendment.

If you can't nail a loon like MTG, you are certainly not going to get others like Trump or Jim Jordan or ...



Liberal/Progressives/Democrats know they are going to get crushed in the elections in November and are resorting to bullshit stunts like this.

Both sides of the political spectrum uses the courts by filing what some consider a waste of time.

I don't disagree that MTG is a "loon". If you believe non Republicans are going to get "crushed" in the elections, what does that say about the voters?
 

Rawley

Sedition Apologist™ and Charter Cult Member™
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
24,010
Reaction score
7,658
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Both sides of the political spectrum uses the courts by filing what some consider a waste of time.

I don't disagree that MTG is a "loon". If you believe non Republicans are going to get "crushed" in the elections, what does that say about the voters?
That they are waking up to the realization that the Democrats sold them a bill of goods in 2020.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
34,126
Reaction score
17,008
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That they are waking up to the realization that the Democrats sold them a bill of goods in 2020.

Would you vote for MTG if you could? Yes or No.

Are you saying MTG stating the "truth" when she makes speeches?
 

Rawley

Sedition Apologist™ and Charter Cult Member™
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
24,010
Reaction score
7,658
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Would you vote for MTG if you could? Yes or No.

Are you saying MTG stating the "truth" when she makes speeches?
Considering I called already her a loon, what's your guess? Would you vote for Omar or Bush or AOC?
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,546
Reaction score
13,990
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think you are saying that this court is empowered to determine that she was likely involved in an insurrection and therefore ineligible. I had not looked at it that way.....very interesting. I was thinking first she must be found guilty of involvement......
Nope, this is a CIVIL action (standard "on the balance of probabilities") and not a CRIMINAL action (standard "beyond a reasonable doubt"). Admittedly if it has already been found "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she was engaged in an "insurrection" then that also meets the CIVIL standard and so there is no need for any trial to determine whether or not she is eligible to hold office.

Now, I will admit that if the 14th Amendment said

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, -shall have engaged- _has been convicted of being engaged_ in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
then it would require that Ms. Taylor-Green have actually been charged, been tried, been convicted, and have lost all appeals before she would fall under the actual black letter ambit of the amendment.

However, it doesn't - so she does.
 

Plasmaball

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,456
Reaction score
7,984
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Because the court is going to find that none of her actions constituted acts of insurrection or rebellion under the 14th amendment.

If you can't nail a loon like MTG, you are certainly not going to get others like Trump or Jim Jordan or ...



Liberal/Progressives/Democrats know they are going to get crushed in the elections in November and are resorting to bullshit stunts like this.
I mean this isn't as bad as running a shadow candidate in Florida in order to take votes away from the democratic Candidate in 2020..
 
Top Bottom