Post #437,703
12/11/20 9:22:08 PM
12/11/20 9:22:08 PM
|
SCOTUS dropkicks Texas case out to the Kuiper Belt
Texas GOP responds by calling for secession (emphasis added below): Austin, TX, Release: December 11, 2020. For Immediate Release
Below is Chairman Allen West’s statement regarding the decision by the Supreme Court to dismiss Texas’ constitutionally legitimate and critical lawsuit.
“The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 US congressman, has decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law. Resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences. This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far-reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic. Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”
The Texas GOP will always stand for the Constitution and for the rule of law even while others don’t. Linky here (get it before cooler heads dispatch it to the memory hole—or perhaps I’m being optimistic here as to the existence of cooler heads in that state’s Republican Party). cordially,
|
Post #437,704
12/11/20 9:27:21 PM
12/11/20 9:27:21 PM
|
as expected, one state interfering in another states election process aint happening
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
|
Post #437,706
12/11/20 10:56:46 PM
12/11/20 10:56:46 PM
|
There could be other consequences.
But, I doubt that Pelosi will do it. NY Times: With nearly two-thirds of House Republicans supporting Texas’s lawsuit seeking to overturn the election in the U.S. Supreme Court, a Democratic House member on Friday called the Republicans “traitors” and urged the House’s Democratic leadership not to seat the Republicans when the 117th Congress convenes in January.
The congressman, Bill Pascrell Jr. of New Jersey, cited a Reconstruction-era passage of the 14th Amendment disqualifying elected officials who “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States.
“The actions of any of our colleagues to demolish democracy, regardless of party affiliation, must be repudiated in the strongest possible terms,” Mr. Pascrell said in his letter. “The fate of our democracy depends on us.”
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, known as the disqualification clause, was originally enacted to limit the influence of former Confederates in the Reconstruction era. It has been used occasionally since. Victor L. Berger, a member of the Socialist Party of America, was repeatedly prevented from taking his seat by a House resolution after winning election in 1919 because he had been convicted under the Espionage Act.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in a letter to Democrats on Friday that Republicans were “subverting the Constitution by their reckless and fruitless assault on our democracy.” Alex
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov
|
Post #437,707
12/12/20 12:13:56 AM
12/12/20 12:13:56 AM
|
This would be a great time to stand up
They demanded the Court take the case. The Court said, "No." Anyone who refuses to publicly acknowledge and accept the decision disqualifies themself.
|
Post #437,710
12/12/20 3:32:59 AM
12/12/20 3:32:59 AM
|
Love. It. (..but I seem to lose such cases)
|
Post #437,718
12/12/20 5:47:53 PM
12/12/20 5:47:53 PM
|
Pelosi can't do it
In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker of the House could not exclude a duly-elected candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. In [Adam Clayton]Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that the House's Constitutional authority to judge the qualifications of its own members was post facto and could only be exercised via expulsion after a 2/3rd affirmative vote. In other words, the House and Senate have no discretion when deciding whether to seat a candidate who has been duly elected under state law, but may take steps to expel that member after they have been sworn-in.
In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker of the House could not exclude a duly-elected candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. In [Adam Clayton]Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that the House's Constitutional authority to judge the qualifications of its own members was post facto and could only be exercised via expulsion after a 2/3rd affirmative vote. In other words, the House and Senate have no discretion when deciding whether to seat a candidate who has been duly elected under state law, but may take steps to expel that member after they have been sworn-in.
from the comments here: https://crooksandliars.com/2020/12/rep-pascrell-dont-seat-126-republicans
Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous.
- - - Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar" 1897
|
