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.”
This column also ran on Fox.com.
“Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) sought to bar 126 members of Congress under the same theory.” “Similar legislation offered by Rep. Cori Bush . . .”
And now: “[Raskin] reintroducing a prior bill . . .”
In other words: The Left rekindles its Reichstag fire.
The parallels with that series of events in the first half of the 1930s are startling, but they began 2 years before the 100th anniversary of the National Socialists taking power. Trump walked right into that one. Imagine he had kept his boot mouth shut, taken the high road, the Dems would have had to work overtime to come up with another Reichstag-fire pretext. But Trump was being Trump. The Republic is done for.
The prog/left seems to think that MAGA = Trump. The idea of MAGA was already in the hearts of 1/2 of this nation before Trump enteted the race in 2015; he just road that train to victory with an unprepared prog/left who lost with hillary by not preparing to “enhance” her supposed victory with mail in ballots that came in an army of bank boxes. Now they are still fixated on the man rather than the MAGA movement and they think that defeating Trump by chicanery will stop that movement – hopefully enough real Americans will prove their strategy wrong in the long run. There needs to be more than one big dog like Trump on the republican side to pick up and lead the MAGA movement despite what they will attempt to do to Trump.
In summary, the democrat party is fomenting a revolt against our Constitution. – nothing more than an insurrection.
We know that but the army of useful tools that have been indoctrinated by the prog/left occupy many of the institutions that Americans would need to disinfect our government and culture. I see no legislative or judicial path to rid our nation of this infestation of woke, prog/left ideologies at this time. We can see how those from the left have occupied critical seats of power – thank G-d for a conservative SCOTUS or we would be totally lost.
Whimsicalmama,
I have mentioned that in the past, the America First idea has been around for a long time.
Trump just packaged it into a nifty campaign slogan, MAGA.
Long after Trump is gone, the idea will still be there. Might be called something else, but it will still be there.
The decision by SC wasn’t a win for President Trump, it was an attempt at saving America, the Republic and the Constitution. They are going to continue to disrupt the nation and our ability to decide who we want as representatives. Election Day (that’s a joke) has morphed into election week, month, whatever. They’re working overtime on that “fundamental change” aren’t they? God help us.
“The decision by SC wasn’t a win for President Trump, it was an attempt at saving America, the Republic and the Constitution.”
That is a critical point.
While the Left’s lawfare activists focus on *the* man and *the* candidate, the SC focused on *a* man and *a* candidate.
Raskin, Swalwell, Pelosi and other Radical Left Wing corrupt DEMS don’t believe in real Democracy and actual legal voters deciding. They are Radical Corrupt Elites who seek to control and profit. Yes, they will continue to go after Trump and others. As we get closer to the elections and they see they are losing, it will get worse. They are afraid of legal real voters and the people. My concern what they will do after the elections and if they lose. Trump will need to come in and clean house and reverse all the radical/corrupt policies. He needs to come in with a strong team not like the first time, avoid the Washington Elite crowd.
If they lose the Presidency but gain full control of Congress, they will disqualify the Republican ticket under the ECA. Should they lose the election, and both Houses, they will spark a new national emergency that is either an H5N1 Pandemic or a nuclear war, so they can implement Martial Law before the new Congress takes office. They might do the pandemic earlier if they know they are going to lose.
God save us from those like Raskin who are working so feverishly to “save” Democracy.
Raskin is from the same sewer of a district in MD that was gerrymandered by Mike Miller (who is burning in hell if there is any justice in the universe) to get moderate and very popular Connie Morella ousted because she wasn’t radical enough. First to rise from that sewer was VanHollen and then Raskin. Pure filth the both of them.
Typical Bolsheviks
A pox upon their house
As Americans regain their power these judas will find themselves alone. It will not happen, there is a thing called due process. When Obama is tried for treason Trump can be tried for incitement.
What a trio of poltroons! Wasserman-Shultz, who corruptly aided Hillary’s path to the 2016 nomination. Swallwell, the unwitting aider of Chinese Intelligence. Raskin, the self-defined insurrectionist. This is the face of the modern Democratic Party. It is time to follow the example of Tulsi Gabbard and just “walk away”.
Is a Poltroon a buffoon?
Have you seen the old 1960s Democratic Party philosophy that has been being thrown around as of late? The Cloward-Piven Stategy from 1966. Seems pretty on point wouldn’t you think? Biden’s only role in this is his self-Roman Catholic preservation. When things start to heat up then he authorizes corrupt DOJ tactics to take out anyone in his, or his handlers, way.
Question, if Raskin actually passed legislation and jailed roughly 100 republicans, would the American people people just meekly accept it?
You bet they would.
They’d have to put down their “smart phones” and think for themselves. Ain’t going to happen.
sounds like insurrection…and these Democrats NEED TO BE jailed…by the Thousands!
welcome to the fascism of Germany or Italy 1930’s
What time do polls close in Super Tuesday states?
Here’s a look at when polls will close states across the country holding elections on Super Tuesday. Some areas may close polls earlier or later than these times, so you should check with your local election officials before casting your ballot.
Alabama: 7 p.m. CST
Alaska: 8 p.m. AKST
Arkansas: 7:30 p.m. CST
California 8 p.m. PST
Colorado: 7 p.m. MST
Iowa (No live voting. Republicans held their caucuses Jan. 15. Democrats are voting by mail.)
Maine 8 p.m. EST
Massachusetts 8 p.m. EST
Minnesota 8 p.m. CST
North Carolina 7:30 p.m. EST
Oklahoma 7 p.m. CST
Tennessee: Varies by county, but many polls close at 8 p.m. ET
Texas 7 p.m. CST
Utah: 8 p.m. MST
Vermont 7 p.m. EST
Virginia 7 p.m. EST
what difference does it make. Voters are irrelevant to Democrats
They have paid professional Ballot makers….and Lawfare army!
We need all voting to be 1 day, in person, with ID
I don’t care if you vote
I care if you cheat!
Also I want to jail the 1000’s of criminal Democrats committing crimes…Judges, DAs, AGs, DOJ, FBI, 50 Intel officials who LIED for Biden, every single person involved in the Russian Hoax Conspiracy, any helping to import illegals, etc
But they do fear the Deplorables! That is why they have all developed TDS! A rare but recently commonly spread illness that causes Democrats and RHINOs to get ill and spend all of our money to increase debt and dependence, and on prosecuting Republicans!
It is the constitutional version of the Big Gulp law, voters like consumers have to be protected against their own unhealthy choices.
Yes the election is the Trial
Voters will decide the facts of the indictment, and vote for conviction, or acquittal
Democrats hate voters. Dont like them even a little bit. Democrats truly believe, only they are qualified to hold power.
voters? 50% of Democrat votes…are professional DONE FRAUDLENT Ballets!
All voting 1 day, in person, with ID
I’m not going to stand in line to vote. Let’s pass anti-electioneering laws that make at-home voting a private act taken on one’s own initiative, banning GOTV tactics. Let’s make all mail-in ballots USPS next-day delivery, and require they be received within 24-h after the polls close.
We can ALWAYS count on you to promote censoring speech you don’t like. At least you are consistent.
I will start with ONE new election requirementr
An unchangeable tally of votes cast, within 30 minutes of polls closing
“An unchangeable tally of votes cast, within 30 minutes of polls closing”
Excellent idea, but that means the count can’t start before the polls close. I’m not sure of when the count starts in all states. We need a Constitutional amendment with minimal rules that protects the integrity of the vote.
My first concern is not whether or not voting is convenient. The integrity of the vote is an absolute necessity. Giving the ability to vote is important but not at the expense of election integrity with one person, one vote.
“I’m not going to stand in line to vote.”
PbinCA, if that is a problem, don’t vote. Voting is something people do because it is a crucial element in our system, not because it is convenient. If the lines are too long, do what the marketplace does when long lines exist. Open up another polling place or add machines. Don’t dilute the votes of honest American citizens.
If you have a better way than the way most Western nations use, present a complete method and show how you can protect the integrity of the voting system.
Coward-Piven Strategy! 1966 Democratic Strategy that would bring down Capitalism through debt, dependence, unfettered illegal immigration, etc. The destruction of our society to create a Communistic way of life.
Sorry, Cloward-Piven
Aside from the difficulties of getting such legislation passed, wouldn’t such a law have an ex post facto problem?
That’s a good point. They would have to use 18 USC 2383. The only way around that would be if they passed a non-criminal law that could find a person had violated Section 3, and the consequences would only be civil: eg, disqualification from office. I believe the ex post facto clause only applies to criminal punishment.
Raskin could do this even if the Republicans seem to win control of Congress in November, and here is how – they start a new pandemic (a real one this time) or a nuclear war, so they can suspend Habeas and implement Martial Law. They they put on travel restrictions to stop most Republican members elect from assembling in DC. When they have a total of 218 members assembled (let’s say 190 of them are the Democrats), they have a quorum and pass whatever legislation they want.
There is much to like about the Supreme Court’s per curium decision in the Colorado ballot case yesterday, including the selection of words like the following: “Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos—arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.” The significance of this may come again when the Court decides on Trump’s presidential immunity case. As Trump mentioned yesterday in his presentation after the Court’s decision, not to uphold the immunity of presidents for actions taken while in office would result in “chaos,” as every act would then become – without immunity – a possible cause of action after a president leaves office. Criminal acts, like other high crimes and misdemeanors, of a president may be cited by the House for impeachment and, if convicted by the Senate, result in indictment and punishment. This seems like a workable solution to avoid chaos. Let’s hope that the Court agrees.
This is the lefts only path to retain power. Lie about facts, eliminate the competition.
I often return to how Obama won his Illinois Senate sinecure. Some how, even now still a mystery, Obama’s opponent, found his sealed divorce settlement was made public.
That’s how he won his U.S. Senate seat. To win his first election to the Illinois state senate, he got every single one of his opponents in the Democrat primary thrown off the ballot, including his one-time mentor, Alice Palmer.
He loved democracy so much he did everything he could to disqualify his opposition so he could run unopposed.
Then had the gall to lecture about how “there’s a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn’t create barriers to people getting on the ballot.”
Politics ain’t beanbag. Obama was really good at this.
Mental pygmies.
When I listen to politicians (from both parties) speak, I think of the old adage ‘make sure your brain is engaged before your speak’.
What about the earlier insurrection—the years-long effort by the entire Dem establishment to hound Trump from office based on a knowingly false “Russia Russia” Hoax? That insurrection cam far closer to succeeding than did Jan 6.
How about the one that didn’t work? Falsifying documents that George Bush had not fulfilled his National Guard obligations? Shouldn’t “insurrection” include efforts to disrupt an election by fraudulent means? How close did that one come to keeping Bush from winning?
I thoroughly enjoy your mind! Thank you for this.