Well, We Have a Speaker. He’s an Election Denier and an Extreme Christian Fundamentalist.
newrepublic.com
Republicans have at long last elected a House speaker: Representative Mike Johnson, a fundamentalist Christian who was also once called a key “architect” in Congress’s efforts to overthrow the 2020 election.
Johnson finally secured the speaker’s gavel after Republican infighting left the House without a speaker for 22 days. He secured 220 votes.
Johnson is a four-term congressman representing Louisiana. His win also represents the rise of the MAGA front in the Republican Party. Earlier Wednesday morning, Donald Trump endorsed Johnson as House speaker—after quickly killing Mike Emmer’s nomination the day before.
You are viewing a single comment
Trump won't even be on the ballot in most states.
"this one's marked Jesus Christ"
"Yeah we count those as for the Republican"
Donaghy you magnificent son of a bitch!
Hopefully, but I also doubt that will stop them trying to elect him anyway. Or if not him I'm sure they'll find someone worse. I doubt we're going to see another Democrat elected in the next few elections that doesn't result in them trying to refuse to certify the election and just in general whine and complain while throwing around baseless accusations. If we're lucky that's as far as it goes, but considering how many parallels to 1920s Germany we're seeing lately I'm very worried the MAGAts recent fascist dabblings are just a taste of things to come.
Outrageously false.
There is nothing that even comes close to settling that in any state at this point. Any speculation on the matter is as good as a handful of shit. Less, maybe.
Colorado has already blocked him from the ballot under the 14th Amendment Section three. Only a 2/3 vote in Congress will change that.
"Survives legal challenge" does not mean it's settled. There is a long fucking way to go here.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/21/politics/colorado-lawsuit-trump-ballot/index.html
"Can move forward" means "definitely still in process"
https://www.kktv.com/2023/10/23/lawsuit-aiming-block-former-president-donald-trump-colorado-ballot-can-move-forward-judge-rules/
"Could keep trump off the ballot" means "still eligible to be on the ballot"
https://www.businessinsider.com/colorado-case-reject-trump-president-candidacy-not-dismissed-14th-amendment-2023-10
deleted by creator
And for the record, the person you're responding to is flat out wrong. Colorado has ABSOLUTELY NOT made any sort of legal ruling to settle that suit
Colorado has been the tip of the spear for legislation nation wide for decades now. It's what we do.
As a Coloradan - Put the weed down and step away from the keyboard. I love this state as much as the next guy, but you are out of your mind if you think this state is the tip of the spear.
Your flag is a bit naff.
At least they have a real flag instead of far too many states with just their seal on blue.
I wonder if that also makes write-ins invalid…
Like is he just removed from the ballot, or is he ineligible altogether?
Election law varies from state to state. But generally from what I gather, a write-in candidate is only valid if the candidate registers with the state in advance.
If there's a winning plurality for Mickey Mouse in your state for a statewide office, it won't matter. The state won't be forced to see if there's anyone there that has the name Mickey Mouse and then pick which (if more than one) was the individual meant by the voters. Someone has to register with the state saying that they're going to run a write-in campaign for office with name XYZ.
Note that these details are a bit of a side track. The above person was talking about Trump being excluded due to the 14th amendment. However that doesn't say "not on the ballot" — it invalidates people from office entirely. If applied to Trump, the not being on the ballot would be a consequence of being determined ineligible for office, not a method to make him unable to win. Also it's all moot: while I think on the face of it the correct action would be to apply the 14th amendment to Trump, the fact of the matter is that this will not happen. States are not going to be willing to risk the political backlash from going down that path, so they will not.
We have a case in colorado that is going forward I believe
Colorado already did and it has stated it's Consitutional and allows a 2/3 vote in the U.S. Congress to overturn. We won't back down from that, the law is the law.
I AM a lawyer, and from what I can see, you're close but (perhaps unintentionally) misrepresenting the facts, unless you are referring to some other previous action. A judge this week decided to allow a case to proceed that will determine, amongst other things, whether the events of January 6 “constituted an insurrection” and whether Trump “engaged” in insurrection.
I'm referring to what our State Legislators are saying that they will ignore the Supreme Court if they don't follow the Consitution in favor or partisan politics. The law is the law and the Supreme Court cannot rewrite what the Consitution says.
Wait really?
No. Not really. Not even a little bit.
There ARE legal challenges in some states, however. To date, none of those are even close to being settled