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

[Phys251]

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene appeals judge's ruling to allow challenge to re-election bid

The lawsuit seeks to disqualify the Georgia Republican from running, alleging she played a role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

www.nbcnews.com

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.

 

[mrjurrs]

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene appeals judge's ruling to allow challenge to re-election bid

The lawsuit seeks to disqualify the Georgia Republican from running, alleging she played a role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

www.nbcnews.com

Good. Treasonists have no place in Congress.

Sweet. The plain text of the Constitution is pretty clear.

 

[Rawley]

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene appeals judge's ruling to allow challenge to re-election bid

The lawsuit seeks to disqualify the Georgia Republican from running, alleging she played a role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

www.nbcnews.com

Good. Treasonists have no place in Congress.

You're probably not going to be happy with the precedent this case sets.

 

[mike2810]

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.

 

[Phys251]

why?

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

The Fourteenth Amendment is very clear about forbidding insurrectionists from Congress.

 

[Callen]

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]

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]

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene appeals judge's ruling to allow challenge to re-election bid

The lawsuit seeks to disqualify the Georgia Republican from running, alleging she played a role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

www.nbcnews.com

Good. Treasonists have no place in Congress.

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 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]

why?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Well I wouldn't really hold my breath over any of it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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]

I don't understand. Doesn't it have to be decided that she in fact did something that makes her constitutionally ineligible to run?

Indeed it does, and that is what THIS court case is all about.

Who gets to decide that?

The trier of fact in THIS court case.

Not defending her, can't stand her...just curious.

Understandable.

 

[Callen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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..