A Michigan judge on Thursday heard arguments from groups seeking to knock Donald Trump off the ballot, the only swing state in which a serious Disqualification Clause case against the former President has been filed.
Time to put the DQ nonsense to bed…
What we need is for a too-young candidate to try to sign up to run and see what happens…
I don’t always wear a necktie that’s a foot wide, but when I do, I get a yuge insurrection.
Believe me, there’s no problem there.
Or perhaps a candidate whose status as a native-born citizen was somewhat questionable? Same result: Punt.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html
More bogus arguments for Trump and willful blindness from judges not wanting to do the work. (Txlawyer is right about that.)
So. by extension, if someone is impeached and removed from office, and ineligible based on that, that person can still run, get placed on a ballot, and get votes that won’t count? Another absurd result where lawyers and judges toe themselves in knots trying to act smarter than the rest of us. (They are not.)
Clearly, the constitution does not intend to allow people to appear on the ballot if they are not eligible to hold the office thing could be elected to.
The last argument Mark Brewer (full disclosure: a long time friend) made is the best and that it wasn’t sufficient for the judge says he came into this argument with his mind closed. When people (like, oh, just for the fun of it, “Donald Trump”) claimed Obama was not a natural-born citizen, their position was that all his acts as president were therefore invalid. Assuming the Democrats have over one-third of one house of Congress after 2025, and Trump was elected (God forbid!), who is deciding that he was in fact ineligible under the Insurrection Clause and as of when? If Congress simply fails to act (e.g., there is a filibuster in the Senate so it never comes to a vote), but could still act, what does that mean? The word Brewer used is the accurate answer: “Chaos.” This is judicial abdication.