As we've seen they'll happily embrace totalitarianism if they can get their way.
TLHLIM
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
As we've seen they'll happily embrace totalitarianism if they can get their way.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
What states have rejected it? Your side was all about crackpot legal theories when Trump wanted to stay in power. This wasn't initiated by any elected Democrats so why are you mad at them? There's a legal process for challenging someone's eligibility. Joe Biden and all these people you are mad at have no power to stop people from doing that. You want to be mad at the Judges making the ruling that's fine, but you have no reason to be mad at people with no control over this. You are more mad about Trump being rules ineligible in a primary he is leading by 50 points in a state that he has no chance of winning in the general than you are about Tumps attempt to stay in power after the 2020 election.
You haven't been keeping track of the states where this has been tried the last few months?
Except Trump wasn't going to stay in power.
He has very little chance for Colorado but this is a cancer that could spread if not snuffed out.
Yeah, such a crackpot legal theory that has been around for decades. Many legal scholars say it's real. Democrats have tried it on several occasions after losses. . Nobody was prosecuted for trying it until now. In fact if the dems had succeeded in using it you would be praising it.
Except Trump wasn't going to stay in power.
He has very little chance for Colorado but this is a cancer that could spread if not snuffed out.
Yeah, such a crackpot legal theory that has been around for decades. Many legal scholars say it's real. Democrats have tried it on several occasions after losses. . Nobody was prosecuted for trying it until now. In fact if the dems had succeeded in using it you would be praising it.
Last edited:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
No I haven't kept track. I had no expectation of it being successful.
Trump absolutely tried to stay in power after losing.
It has no chance of winning with the conservative majority in the Supreme Court so all your elections is for nothing.
There is no valid legal theory that the VP can send certified votes back to the states without a court order. Pence desperately wanted to but even the most biased person in Trump's favor admitted it was no valid. No Democrat has ever tried this. There are valid ways to handle disputes. Court cases. Objections during certification. Those are the only valid means to change the results. What isn't a legal theory is that a person can be denied to run for office if they engaged in insurrection. That's a fact written into the constitution.
Trump absolutely tried to stay in power after losing.
It has no chance of winning with the conservative majority in the Supreme Court so all your elections is for nothing.
There is no valid legal theory that the VP can send certified votes back to the states without a court order. Pence desperately wanted to but even the most biased person in Trump's favor admitted it was no valid. No Democrat has ever tried this. There are valid ways to handle disputes. Court cases. Objections during certification. Those are the only valid means to change the results. What isn't a legal theory is that a person can be denied to run for office if they engaged in insurrection. That's a fact written into the constitution.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I don't know the specifics about the consulting firm but that's a settlement agreement not a trial verdict. Alex Jones didn't get sued for spreading conspiracy theories he got sued for encouraging deranged lunatics to harass parents of children who were murdered in a school shooting so they would buy his scam products. If you think that's worth defending you can go **** yourself because you are a piece of ****. He refused to comply with discovery and got a default judgement against himself. He has no one to blame for that but himself.
Googliani admitted to knowingly spreading false claims about 2 election workers causing them to be harassed by Trump supporters then repeatedly doubled down on his defamatory statements. Future law classes will use Googlianis stupidity as the prime example of what not to do in a legal case. Don't expect a pity party for a man who sabotaged his own case and cries victim.
Googliani admitted to knowingly spreading false claims about 2 election workers causing them to be harassed by Trump supporters then repeatedly doubled down on his defamatory statements. Future law classes will use Googlianis stupidity as the prime example of what not to do in a legal case. Don't expect a pity party for a man who sabotaged his own case and cries victim.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Lol
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Section 5 says Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Which is hilarious based on the arguments MAGA has been making regarding the VP role in counting electoral votes. MAGA says that just because it says the VP "shall open and count the valid electoral votes" doesnt mean he cant do all these other things because it doesnt specifically say he cant. Now all of a sudden its the opposite when it suits them. Theres a LONG history of the courts enforcing Section 1 which are provisions of the same amendment. So try again.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
But lets go deeper. How about we go by examples of people who were disqualified. Specifically people in the 1800's when the amendment was fresh and generally the same people who passed it were around.
Kenneth H Worthy, 1869, disqualified by the North Carolina Supreme Court, never convicted of a crime, appeal dismissed and ruling confirmed.
William L Tate, 1869, disqualified by the Noth Carolina Supreme Court, never convicted of a crime, appeal dismissed and ruling confirmed.
JD Watkins, 1869. disqualified by the Louisiana Supreme Court, never convicted of a crime, appeal dismissed and ruling confirmed.
Kenneth H Worthy, 1869, disqualified by the North Carolina Supreme Court, never convicted of a crime, appeal dismissed and ruling confirmed.
William L Tate, 1869, disqualified by the Noth Carolina Supreme Court, never convicted of a crime, appeal dismissed and ruling confirmed.
JD Watkins, 1869. disqualified by the Louisiana Supreme Court, never convicted of a crime, appeal dismissed and ruling confirmed.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
2022 Couy Griffin "Cowboys for Trump" founder
New Mexico District Court Judge Francis Mathew barred Otero County commissioner and 'Cowboys for Trump' founder Couy Griffin, citing a clause in the 14th Amendment that prohibits those who have engaged in insurrection from serving -- the only time in 150 years that the provision has been used to disqualify an official and the first time that a court has ruled the events of Jan. 6 were an "insurrection."
Griffin "incited, encouraged and helped normalize the violence," Mathew wrote, calling his actions "overt acts in support of the insurrection."
By written law it still isn't valid and neither are Cajun's examples when those courts ignored written law. Legal precedents are supposed to be addendums to the law, not a complete ignoring what the original laws say. There's nothing in the amendment that says courts get to determine what an insurrection is, the legislature does. I hope SCOTUS addresses this.
I will admit you can also flip it and make the argument that the 1860's legislature had already determined it was an insurrection with their actions which made Cajun's court cases legal. However, in Griffin's case you can't and neither can the Colorado case.
Last edited:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Garnel out here saying courts don't have the power to enforce the constitution. Lol.
Courts don't have the power to declare something's an insurrection. Only congress can. It's right there in black and white.
It was put in there for the reasons we're seeing now.