Raskin and the Agents of Chaos: Democrats Prepare to Resume Disqualification Efforts in Congress
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Calling it "one on a huge list of priorities," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) announced that he will be reintroducing a prior bill with Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell to disqualify not just Trump but a large number of Republicans from taking office.
The alternative, it appears, is unthinkable: allowing the public to choose their next president and representatives in Congress. It appears that the last thing Democrats want is for the unanimous decision to actually lead to an outbreak of democracy. Where the Court expressly warned of "chaos" in elections, Raskin and others appear eager to be agents of chaos in Congress.
Soon after the decision, Raskin went on the air at CNN to assure people that he and his colleagues would not stand by and allow the right to vote be restored to citizens in the upcoming election. He pledged to offer a prior bill that would declare Jan. 6 an "insurrection" and that those involved "engaged in insurrection."
I previously wrote about these "ballot cleansing" efforts because it would not just disqualify Trump but potentially dozens of sitting Republican members of Congress. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) sought to bar 126 members of Congress under the same theory. Similar legislation offered by Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) to disqualify members got 63 co-sponsors, all Democrats.
Raskin's participation in this effort is crushingly ironic. In 2016, he sought to block certification of the 2016 election under the very same law as violent protests were occurring before the inauguration.
The prior bills were sweeping and included members who did not engage in any violent acts (no member has been charged with such violence or even incitement) but merely opposed certification.
Raskin recently offered a particularly Orwellian argument for the disqualification of Trump and his colleagues in Congress: "If you think about it, of all of the forms of disqualification that we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it's the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified."
In other words, preventing voters from voting is "the most democratic" because these people choose to oppose certification . . . as he did in 2016.
After the ruling, Raskin added the curious claim that the justices "didn't exactly disagree with [the disqualification theory]. They just said that they're not the ones to figure it out. It's not going to be a matter for judicial resolution under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but it's up to Congress to enforce it."
That was sharply different from the pre-decision Raskin who insisted that there was no real question legally and that the case before the justices was "their opportunity to behave like real Supreme Court justices."
Well, they did act as "real Supreme Court justices" by unanimously opposing what the Court described as the "chaos" that would unfold with such state disqualification efforts. Raskin, however, is seeking a new avenue for chaos through Congress.
Raskin's statement is also bizarre in claiming that somehow the justices agreed with him and the others pushing disqualification. No one, not even the Trump team, questioned that Congress could act to bar people from office. It is expressly stated in the Constitution. It is not an "argument" but a fact.
Of course, the Democrats would need to craft the legislation correctly to satisfy the standard and secure the support of both houses. Neither appears likely at this point.
However, Raskin is succeeding in one respect. He and his colleagues have bulldozed any moral high ground after January 6th. Most of us condemned the riot on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process. Yet, the Democrats have responded with the most anti-democratic efforts to prevent voters from exercising their rights in the upcoming election.
For these members, citizens cannot be trusted with this power as Trump tops national polls as the leading choice for the presidency. It is the political version of the Big Gulp law, voters like consumers have to be protected against their own unhealthy choices.
Raskin has continued to accuse the nine justices of being cowards in not supporting ballot cleansing. He told CNN that the court "doesn't like the ultimate and inescapable implications of just enforcing the Constitution, as written." In other words, all nine justices, including the three liberals justices, are disregarding clear constitutional mandates to protect Trump.
It is the same delusional view echoed by other liberals who were enraged by the decision. Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann declared that "the Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the 'court' has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. It must be dissolved."
After all, nothing says democracy like ballot cleansing and dissolving courts before a national election.
With the resumption of efforts to disqualify Republicans from running on ballots, Raskin and his colleagues seem to be channeling the spirit of former Mayor Dick Daley in the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago.
With allegations of abuse by the police in cracking down on protests, Daley declared "the policeman isn't there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder." With Democrats preparing to return to Chicago for their convention this year, Raskin and others appear to be responding to the Court that "the party isn't there to create chaos, the party is there to preserve chaos."
Tags
Who is online
436 visitors
The democrats fear the voters...
and the SCOTUS
This is the same stupid as the Republican Biden investigation. I'm sure if the House puts it's collective 2 brain cells together they might actually solve a real problem by accident.
Anything to avoid winning an election, I guess. At least it’s legal, which is rare for them.
I have doubts on it's legality, but it won't pass the House anyway.
That's questionable.
Raskin is trying to become the new Schiff.
Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell Raskin that Schiff hasn't departed the House yet. Though by his silence it is easy to understand why Raskin thinks he is gone.
Democrats/leftists bitch about Republicans wasting tax payer money and time on worthless bills and investigations. Throw in lawsuits and you have Democrats for the last 8 years plus and counting.
The bill will never see the House floor. Democrats and leftists can cry about it from now until the general election- which can't come soon enough.
It's going to take a lot of work to be that fundamentally dishonest and he's got so much competition from Swalwell, Goldman etc.. Jamal Bowman brazen lying after pulling a fire alarm to stop a vote has to be the leader in the clubhouse though.
Link please...
'Not clear enough': Scholars warn SCOTUS ruling creates the very 'chaos' they 'were trying to avoid' (msn.com)
W hen the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson , many critics of former President Donald Trump feared that the justices would strike down a Colorado Supreme Court ruling barring Trump from their state ballot based on Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Even Justice Elena Kagan, a Barack Obama appointee, expressed great skepticism about the Colorado justices' reasoning.
Sure enough, the High Court struck down the Colorado ruling — and by extension, similar Section 3-based decisions in Maine and Illinois — on Monday, March 4. The decision was unanimous , with all nine justices agreeing that the Colorado Supreme Court was wrong to exclude Trump from the state's ballot.
Five of the justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts — went a step further and said that a federal "officer" cannot be removed from a state ballot unless Congress has passed legislation. But three Democratic appointees (Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson) and far-right Justice Amy Coney Barrett didn't agree.
In an article published on March 4 , Politico reporters Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein stress that although the High Court justices said their decision was designed to avoid "chaos," they "mayhave just shifted that chaos to Congress."
Cheney and Gerstein explain , "The five justices who fully endorsed the Court's lead opinion envisioned Congress passing 'enforcement legislation'…. But scholars say the 13-page opinion left room for Trump's detractors to pursue another path if he receives a majority of electoral votes this November: They could try to throw out his electoral votes on January 6, 2025, when Congress will meet to certify the winner of the 2024 election. Such a scenario would be an extraordinary turnabout."
The reporters add , "On January 6, 2021, Trump promoted bogus claims of voter fraud to lobby congressional Republicans to block the certification of Joe Biden's victory — a push that inspired a mob to storm the Capitol and lash out violently when the effort failed. His allies relied on fringe interpretations of the 12th Amendment to push their last-ditch gambit."
Ohio State University professor and constitutional law expert Ned Foley has reservations about the Trump v. Anderson ruling.
Foley told Politico , "They were trying to avoid all of this. They were trying to foreclose an effort to disqualify Trump after he wins. But they didn't do it clearly enough…. Is there power in Congress to consider the (disqualification) issue in January?"
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland), interviewed by Politico, said of the Trump v. Anderson ruling , "My initial reading of it suggests that they are saying that Congress must act… to pass a statute. But I am not certain of that, and we want to explore it. So I don't want to pronounce on that."
Read Politico's full report at this link .
"Scholars warn"
The same scholars who already embarrassed themselves by promoting crackpot theories that Colorado had a legitimate argument in this case. Yet the lLeft wing media continues to promote these frauds as "experts" to promote their partisan agenda.
three Democratic appointees (Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson) and far-right Justice Amy Coney Barrett
If you ever want to see blatant bias in action, this sentence is the perfect example. Completely discredits the authors as partisan hacks.
mayhave just shifted that chaos to Congress."
The text of the Constitution gave that authority to Congress. Although, it's not surprising to see the anti-Democratic party demand a solution that doesn't involve democracy.
You aren't supposed to remember that.
Ok, was it the same ones?
Yes
I don’t think the next step is congressional action. Congress did all it needed to do (if I read the Supremes correctly) when it passed the insurrection act of 1862. What you need now, is for the Attorney General to prosecute under 18 US 2383. Although, if you ask me, that code is so vaguely worded - and potentially overbroad in its application - I don’t know how you would ever convict anyone of violating it.
To date, that hasn't happened. That brings us to the justification for the SCOTUS decision. Despite what some want (or demand) everybody to believe, an indictment isn't a trial or a conviction under 18 USC §2383 . So for a state to initiate removal from a ballot, would not only be possibly illegal, it is not in their jurisdiction.
Neither a trial or an indictment is required under 14 section 3.
So what, exactly, what is required?.
The audio and video of the 1/6 insurrection, the testimony of participants in 1/6 convicted and sent to prison, the ensuing 1/6 house committee findings ......... !
What you are implying is that your hurt feelings are enough. Sorry to burst your inflated ego but its not.
18 USC §2383 requires a trial and conviction . Just like any other statute under 18 USC. With that, 14 / 3 can be applied. And only at the federal level. To date, neither have happened. We just have people running around with hurt feelings demanding the unapplicable be applied.
With as many posts as you've made about it, are you now saying that you've never actually read it????????