Dems' desperate suppression tactics

Democrats have screamed voter suppression after each election they lose for at least the last 3-4 election cycles. Stacey Abrams is the poster child of the Democrats' suppression movement, with Joe Biden being her chief cheerleader. Woke corporations like Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines have chimed in on this faux issue, too,

Apparently, though, Democrats didn't hesitate in ignoring the Constitution when it comes to filing lawsuits that attempted to strip 3 Arizona legislators (2 congressmen and a state legislator) from the ballot. It's quite ironic that Democrats used a front group to file the lawsuit. It's heartwarming that the judge threw out the lawsuit. The front group is titled Free Speech for the People. The judge who threw out the lawsuit is Christopher Coury. He's the "Maricopa County Superior Court Judge."

The Democrats' argument for keeping Biggs, Gosar and Finchem was that Biggs, Gosar and Finchem were part of an insurrection, which is prohibited by "Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution." The judge immediately threw out the lawsuit because Biggs, Gosar and Finchem haven't been charged with insurrection, much less been convicted of insurrection.

Here's part of Judge Coury's ruling:

"This Court will follow the restrained and judicious lead of the federal courts. Arizona’s election challenge framework is ill-suited for the detailed analysis of the complex constitutional, legal and factual issues presented in this case."

"It would contradict the plain language of the United States Constitution for this Court to conduct any trial over the qualifications of a member of Congress."

Free Speech for the People intends on appealing this ruling:
Free Speech For People told the Arizona Mirror it intends to appeal. "This ruling is contrary to the law," the organization said in a statement. "Arizona is not exempted from the mandate of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A candidate who has taken an oath of office and then engaged in insurrection has no place on a future Arizona ballot. We will be appealing this decision to the Arizona Supreme Court."
These Democrats should be laughed out of court. The definition of insurrection is "a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers."

Mssrs. Biggs, Gosar and Finchem attended the Trump rally. Reps. Biggs and Gosar then went to the House Chamber for the approval/rejection of the electoral votes. There is no proof that Reps. Biggs or Gosar engaged in any violent actions. Without violence, there is no insurrection. That isn't to say that there weren't acts of violence that day. It's just that Biggs and Gosar didn't engage in any violence. This is then-President Trump's call for unification after the uprising:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue
Read more

What is Kamala Harris afraid of?

Image
Apparently, Kamala Harris suddenly loves debating. Let me rephrase that. Harris loves debating as long as the moderators are partisan hacks. She wants nothing to do with a debate moderated by Fox's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. She's afraid of Bret and Martha because a) they'll either fact-check both her and Trump or they won't fact-check either of them and b) Bret and Martha aren't afraid of asking follow-up questions. To a candidate whose answers are scripted and who isn't quick on her feet, the last thing you want is a follow-up question. Kamala fears follow-up questions like vampires hate wooden stakes, sunlight and holy water. Why has Kamala Harris avoided Fox News like the plague? The moderators/propagandists fact-checked Donald Trump aggressively but didn't fact-check Harris . Why didn't David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-check both candidates equally? Is it because Harris doesn't like fair fights? Perhaps she's just afraid of getting exp
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio
Read more