Liberal Forum

Buffalo » 05 Mar 2024, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑

05 Mar 2024, 9:33 am

The Supreme Court didn’t dig into the weeds of the entire insurrection debate, but one obvious issue with the various efforts to remove Trump from the ballot in various states was that insurrection had been left entirely to Democrat state officials to define. That kind of nonsense however won’t fly in an actual legislative process.

Now that the Supreme Court blocked state officials from announcing that Trump can’t be on the ballot because he’s an “insurrectionist”, House members are now trying to play the same game.

For now, in a GOP House, the bill is mostly virtue signaling, but tellingly Raskin is not so much trying to define insurrection as trying to define J6 as an insurrection. It’s the typical end run around the process of defining the thing because otherwise Democrat BLMers might fall afoul of it.

The Raskin bill conveniently defines J6 as an insurrection and carefully defines the term so as to specifically apply it to Trump. It does not however define what an insurrection is making the whole exercise into a bill that specifically exists to block a particular candidate from being able to take office on grounds that would be unlikely to apply to his own party. Does that raise some major banana republic issues? Obviously.Still, has Raskin considered what kind of can of worms he’s opening here?

Forget BLM for a moment. Giving aid or comfort to America’s enemies would block nearly every Democrat from taking or holding office. Pass a resolution declaring that funding Iran or any other terror group was an example of providing aid or comfort to America’s enemies and the party can get started.

House Dems Prep an "Insurrection" Bill Barring Trump from Taking Office | Frontpage Mag