Judge appears likely to allow January 6-related candidacy challenge against Marjorie Taylor Greene
Atlanta (CNN)A federal judge signaled Friday that she’ll likely allow a group of Georgia voters to move forward with their constitutional challenge against GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, which claims she can’t run for reelection because she aided the January 6 insurrectionists.
Federal Judge Amy Totenberg of the Northern District of Georgia said during a lengthy hearing that she has “significant questions and concerns” about a recent ruling in a similar case, which blocked the same challenge against Rep. Madison Cawthorn, a North Carolina Republican.
A group of Georgia voters, backed by a coalition of constitutional scholars and liberal activists, lodged the challenge against Greene last month with state election officials. Greene then filed her own lawsuit in federal court, asking Totenberg to shut down the state-level proceedings.
Totenberg said she will issue a ruling next week, likely on Monday. That’s two days before a state judge is scheduled to hold a hearing on the underlying question of whether Greene engaged in or aided the January 6, 2021, insurrection and whether that disqualifies her from office.
James Bopp Jr., a conservative lawyer who is representing Greene, said the challenge was “50 pages of newspaper articles, hearsay and political hyperbole.” He warned during the court hearing that if the challenge is allowed to proceed, it will embolden liberal groups to try to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running for reelection in 2024.
The hearing Friday was the latest chapter in the seemingly elusive efforts to hold prominent GOP officials responsible for January 6, which are playing out in a major congressional inquiry, a federal criminal probe that has largely focused on the rioters themselves and civil litigation.
The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits officeholders from returning to elected positions if they supported an insurrection. The challengers claim that Greene can’t run for reelection because she “aided” the January 6 insurrection, allegedly planned with protest organizers and “encouraged” the violence that disrupted the Electoral College certification.
They cited Greene’s own comments, including one video where she explicitly said she opposed the peaceful transfer of power to President Joe Biden “because he did not win this election.”
Lawyers for Greene say she isn’t an insurrectionist and that disqualifying her would violate her First Amendment rights. She previously told CNN that she had “never encouraged political violence and never will.” A spokesman said she wasn’t involved in planning any protests on January 6.
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
About the Author: NC Scout
NC Scout is the nom de guerre of a former Infantry Scout and Sergeant in one of the Army’s best Reconnaissance Units. He has combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He teaches a series of courses focusing on small unit skills rarely if ever taught anywhere else in the prepping and survival field, including his RTO Course which focuses on small unit communications. In his free time he is an avid hunter, bushcrafter, writer, long range shooter, prepper, amateur radio operator and Libertarian activist. He can be contacted at [email protected] or via his blog at brushbeater.wordpress.com .
7 Comments
Comments are closed.
GUNS N GEAR
Regardless of what you think about Greene this move by libscum is utter bullshit.
Its the same game they’re playing with Cawthorne.
Was there ever a more dishonorable foe ? They are asking for a Pinochet .
They deserve it.
CNN agitprop. Even if comrade Totenberg allows this miscarriage to proceed, it’ll end like Cawthorne’s case.
Lawyers become judges because that are bought pull pulling moochers who sell their souls for 30 shekels. Of course the judge will allow the lawsuit to proceed because being bought means more shekels in her purse. The US judicial systems is corrupt to it’s core. The scales of justice are only for weighting shekels. Who is John Galt? TEXIT
There could be another gambit here as well. This could be an attempt to set up legal precedent to go after others who are being a thorn in their side and have them removed using similar language. Think governors who are signing laws banning pedos from grooming kids in school.