Efforts to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from ballot can move ahead, says judge, and her first hearing is Friday

Originally published at: Efforts to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from ballot can move ahead, says judge, and her first hearing is Friday | Boing Boing


I would rather have voters come to their senses and vote this GQP rep out, but if her ouster is due to provisions in constitutional amendments, I’ll take that too.


It’s a more than legitimate basis to disqualify her from office due to unsuitability. The Constitution and its amendments set a very low bar for who can hold office, but there are some like EmptyG who can’t clear even that.


When she testifies I suggest they be on their toes, they might get the opportunity to charge her with perjury too.


Understood and right there with you in wanting the democratic process to work, but given that the GOP has continued to pass legislation to restrict voters rights, it’s not exactly even footing to start with.


Good; she needs to kick rocks with no socks and take Bobert with her.


I’m really interested to see if any of these types of challenges succeed. It seems the more obscure provisions of the constitution mostly get ignored.



How will Marge get attention without her Congressperson gig?


She’ll be a Faux News correspondent, obviously.


So … either she’ll beat the rap and be reelected in a landslide as a martyr to her people, or …

… she won’t be allowed to run, and whoever the GOP nominee is in her red district will be elected to the House.

Heavy sigh…


I hesitate to speculate on how much worse a replacement for any of these people could be because just when I think they’ve found the muck they dig deeper.


It’s OK if she loses her seat… she can always go on the White Supremist talk & appearance (GQP) circuit.


That’d be a great idea but her constituency loves her beyond measure. I have no doubt they’ll vote her in again if she’s on the ballot.

A court can’t just take judicial notice that she was engaged in an insurrection – that’s a fact that has to be proven, and proven in a criminal context. With officers in the CSA, a court could simply take notice that they were an enrolled officer in the Alabama 5th Regiment or whatever – and then that fact established they were involved in an insurrection. Here, even though she absolutely was being an insurrectionist, a court can’t just say “oh, okay, that solves this, you were an insurrectionist and are off the ballot.”

This goes no where. And going no where is the right result. It is not a stretch at all to have some Republicans flip the script and say “hey, this antifa dude was throwing a molotov at a court house, which is an insurrection.” There has to be due process on this point, much as she’s an idjit.


I don’t think the 14th Amendment meets the definition of obscure.


That wouldn’t apply. They weren’t trying to overthrow the government- and hadn’t taken an oath.

“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 in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”


I’d be happy with any result that deprives us of her sterling statescraft, but this is a huge long shot. Even if they did prove that she was legally culpable for insurrection (which is not the same as being morally culpable), it’s not even clear that the insurrection clause in the 14th amendment is still valid. The amendment contains an explicit provision for Congress to remove the insurrection limitation for holding office, which they did in the late 19th century.