Started By
Message

re: Jamie Raskin another j6 crybully won’t certify election

Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:42 am to
Posted by momentoftruth87
Your mom
Member since Oct 2013
85386 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:42 am to
He will def try to not certify.
Posted by LaMigra
Member since Nov 2022
2509 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:42 am to
quote:

I'm not playing anymore. I will put on a ski mask and beat this fricker with a bat.


Why do cock suckers like this idiot, have THE most punchable faces (I’m looking at you too Chuck) are always democRATS
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
452474 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:42 am to
I googled and that quote only appears on echo chamber X/Twitter accounts and nowhere else.

I think that may be an alt account for Black Insurrectionist
Posted by LSUSkip
Central, LA
Member since Jul 2012
22499 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:42 am to
Is Raskin an elector? If so, he has pretty much no choice. He will have to certify. I'd say I'd hate to see what happens to him if he refuses, but I'd probably enjoy it.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
452474 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:43 am to
quote:

SFP says there's no way for Democrats to block certification.


There is not. This looks like absolutely fake news.
Posted by H8BasedContent
Member since Jun 2023
152 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:43 am to
We absolutely must drive these vermin from the levers of still breathing.

FYP
Posted by ksayetiger
Centenary Gents
Member since Jul 2007
69746 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:45 am to
Why do good souls die of cancer and he didn't?
Posted by lake chuck fan
westlake
Member since Aug 2011
18566 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:46 am to
quote:

quote:
SFP says there's no way for Democrats to block certification.


There is not. This looks like absolutely fake news.


Seriously, please explain. I've read different ideas about this, but that if it happens the House would vote on it. Then I read something about it would then go to Vance.... ?????
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
452474 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:55 am to
quote:

Seriously, please explain.


The Supreme Court (in the Colorado case) ruled that Congress has to pass a law.

So the 14th Amendment text says this and that about a few things (including the insurrection language). But, Section 5 specifically says this:

quote:

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


That's why the states acting to remove Trump were reversed, because this power is exclusive to Congress.

BUT, the section also specifically says "by appropriate legislation", so Congress has to pass a law (which they have in the past but there is nothing on the books now) in order to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Here is a quote from the majority opinion.

quote:

Congress’s Section 5 power is critical when it comes to Section 3. Indeed, during a debate on enforcement legislation less than a year after ratification, Sen. Trumbull noted that “notwithstanding [Section 3] . . . hundreds of men [were] holding office” in violation of its terms. Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., at 626. The Constitution, Trumbull noted, “provide[d] no means for enforcing” the disqualification, necessitating a “bill to give effect to the fundamental law embraced in the Constitution.” Ibid. The enforcement mechanism Trumbull championed was later enacted as part of the Enforcement Act of 1870, “pursuant to the power conferred by §5 of the [Fourteenth] Amendment.” General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U. S. 375, 385 (1982); see 16 Stat. 143–144.


Here is the dissenting opinion bitching about how the majority added this requirement (instead of just invalidating the COSC ruling)

quote:

Court and petitioner from future controversy. Ante, at 13. Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.


So there must be a law passed by Congress to enforce Section 3. No law exists (and no law is likely even possible prior to the inauguration).

Further, I speculate if they could somehow pass it between now and the inauguration, it would be challenged and the USSC would rule the law cannot be retroactive. That means it can't apply to past behavior (only behavior after the law was passed). This would mean this federal law woudl have had to existed on January 6, 2021 (and none did).
Posted by Clockwatcher68
Youngsville
Member since May 2006
7291 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:56 am to
quote:

He will def try to not certify.


Too much rhetoric stating the opposite by his overlords. He might try, but would be made to quickly fall in line.
Posted by Antonio Moss
The South
Member since Mar 2006
48709 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:57 am to
Democracy dies with Democrats
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
283257 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:58 am to
quote:

He will def try to not certify.


It dont matter if they can or can't, just the sentiment is enough to realize they are absolutely full of shite and hate "their democracy."

The Dem reaction will be hilarious over the next few days, probably a little violent in some places.

Posted by lake chuck fan
westlake
Member since Aug 2011
18566 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:59 am to
Appreciate it
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
283257 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 6:59 am to
quote:

We absolutely must drive these vermin from the levers of still breathing.


Its typical Dem election denying bullshite.

They've filed impeachment papers on ever elected Republican since Ike.
Posted by Smeg
Member since Aug 2018
12562 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 7:00 am to
Would that make this guy a "threat to democracy"?
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
452474 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 7:02 am to
quote:

Would that make this guy a "threat to democracy"?


That's certainly the echo bouncing around the chamber
Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
59631 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 7:10 am to
quote:

It dont matter if they can or can't, just the sentiment is enough to realize they are absolutely full of shite and hate "their democracy."

The Dem reaction will be hilarious over the next few days, probably a little violent in some places.




Right. It doesn't matter if they are successful. I think they know they won't be successful.

But, they want to "delegitimize" the Trump victory...just like they tried to do in 2016. If they can force the USSC to make a ruling, any ruling, they will view it as a win because then they will throw the anti-USSC propaganda out there for 4 years.

Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
283257 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 7:11 am to
quote:

But, they want to "delegitimize" the Trump victory...just like they tried to do in 2016


yep, many refused to accept Trump as the elected candidate.

All the handwringing regarding J-6 is virtue signaling, Demos are far worse than republicans when it comes to "their Democracy."
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
452474 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 7:12 am to
quote:

But, they want to "delegitimize" the Trump victory...just like they tried to do in 2016. If they can force the USSC to make a ruling, any ruling, they will view it as a win because then they will throw the anti-USSC propaganda out there for 4 years.


They have a much better option that doesn't risk to delegitimize themselves like this would: the federal prosecutions.

They know that fight is going to be very fruitful for their attacks and they don't have to do anything except wait and see how Trump and the DOJ respond to him taking office while under 2 different federal prosecutions.

Be prepared to hear "constitutional crisis" 3M times between inauguration and 2026
Posted by MemphisGuy
Germantown, TN
Member since Nov 2023
11056 posts
Posted on 11/5/24 at 7:15 am to
quote:

Word and stuff. Like, alot of them.

So in other words,
Try it, Jamie. Just try it. We dare you.
Jump to page
Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 10Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram