HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » How can the 106 Republica...

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 08:38 PM

How can the 106 Republicans be sworn in when they can't swear to defend the Constitution?

Serious question.

34 replies, 783 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply How can the 106 Republicans be sworn in when they can't swear to defend the Constitution? (Original post)
onecaliberal Dec 11 OP
bullimiami Dec 11 #1
Ferrets are Cool Dec 11 #2
Biophilic Dec 11 #3
moondust Dec 11 #4
Ferryboat Dec 11 #5
onecaliberal Dec 11 #7
StarfishSaver Dec 12 #23
William769 Dec 11 #6
PufPuf23 Dec 11 #8
onecaliberal Dec 11 #9
StarfishSaver Dec 12 #19
c-rational Dec 11 #10
onecaliberal Dec 11 #11
Sogo Dec 11 #13
StarfishSaver Dec 11 #12
onecaliberal Dec 12 #14
StarfishSaver Dec 12 #15
onecaliberal Dec 12 #16
StarfishSaver Dec 12 #17
onecaliberal Dec 12 #28
StarfishSaver Dec 12 #29
onecaliberal Dec 12 #30
StarfishSaver Dec 12 #31
onenote Dec 12 #33
LanternWaste Dec 12 #18
StarfishSaver Dec 12 #21
Roisin Ni Fiachra Dec 12 #22
StarfishSaver Dec 12 #24
Roisin Ni Fiachra Dec 12 #25
StarfishSaver Dec 12 #26
Roisin Ni Fiachra Dec 12 #27
onenote Dec 12 #34
Paladin Dec 12 #20
treestar Dec 12 #32

Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 08:39 PM

1. They cannot. Serious answer. It would be a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 08:44 PM

2. They lie in their sleep, this will be just one more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 08:44 PM

3. This.

It is a serious question and deserves a serious answer but I'm not sure from whom. Perhaps us. Perhaps their supposed peers in congress. I'm not sure, but someone needs to ask them what they thought they were doing attempting to damage the Constitution. At very least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 08:46 PM

4. 126

Good question. Does their Trump Confederacy have a Constitution they'd like to pledge allegiance to instead? Somewhere in Russia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 08:56 PM

5. If any hold a license to practice law

Wouldn't it be perjury to swear an oath? Certainly its hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ferryboat (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 09:13 PM

7. Good point. Hadn't thought of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ferryboat (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 12:08 PM

23. Perjury refers to sworn testimony given in a court proceeding

It is completely inoperable here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 08:58 PM

6. Because they live by a double standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 09:19 PM

8. The 106 GOP sedition representives cannot be sworn in without committing

perjury.

If any lie, they should be prosecuted for perjury and sedition.

Pelosi should inform the States with the felon tentive reps to schedule special epections to fill the seats.

The situation puts on a platter a first and major step of reconciliation and repair of our institutions of governance.

Let our leaders be brave and firm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 09:25 PM

9. I agree. It cannot stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 12:02 PM

19. "Perjury"



FYI, the Speaker has no authority to 'inform" a state to conduct special elections.

And there is no such thing as a "felon tentive rep" ...

But other than that, your post makes sense.

Well, actually, it doesn't ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 09:54 PM

10. The PA AG on Chris Cuomo said they may have serious legal issues. They are suppose to uphold

and defend the Constitution and they have not. Also, this AG is considering sanctions against lawyers who aided and abetted this frivolous lawsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to c-rational (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 10:41 PM

11. There has to be a price to pay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 10:52 PM

13. Totally agree.

The last thing we want to do is reinforce this behavior by having no consequences!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 10:49 PM

12. Because the oath is a promise of what they're going to do in the future

We have no way of reading anyone's minds so we do not determine in advance that they're going to violate their oath of office. And we don't deny people a place in Congress because we suspect they might not uphold the Constitution in the future based on past behavior, especially when they have not been charged and convicted of any wrongdoing.

We need to be careful about the kinds of arguments being made in this thread. Not only don't they make sense, they could easily be used against any member with whom someone disagrees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 11:45 AM

14. Republicans signed a lawsuit that sought to invalidate the votes of 4 states. They signed on.

They're actively working from the inside to destroy democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 11:48 AM

15. They didn't "sign a lawsuit"

They signed an amicus brief. That's not a crime and it's not sedition, insurrection or rebellion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 11:52 AM

16. They fully support the suit. They want to impose their will on America, voters be damned.

On edit: This sums it up for me.


?s=20

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 11:57 AM

17. Kind of like the way you want to impose YOUR will on voters who chose their Representatives

Not sure why you posted this completely irrelevant tweet from Professor Tribe, which in no way supports your argument. But, whatever.

Numerous lawyers have explained to you why your interpretation of the law is completely erroneous, yet you continue to insist otherwise, notwithstanding your lack of expertise in the area.

Fortunately, your comepletely erroneous view of the law doesn't hold any water with people who actually know the law and are responsible for making, interpreting and enforcing it.

But, if course, you are free to continue yelling into the wind. But I have better things to do than to argue the law with someone who doesn't understand it and is completely resistant to learning anything about it.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 12:47 PM

28. Kinda how I want THE VOTERS will imposed. You're assuming facts not in evidence.

Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 12:48 PM

29. The VOTERS' will in those 126 was to have those Members represent them

You're demanding that Members from other states and districts decide that these voters' chosen representatives should not be seated for reasons unrelated to their qualifications, which the Constitution does not allow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 12:57 PM

30. The states in question were won by Biden, so no

Your argument doesnít make sense. Iím not going to agree with you on this. Have a great rest of your day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 01:02 PM

31. You know presidential and congressional elections are two different things, right?

A majority of voters in those states voted for Biden. But a majority of voters in those Members districts voted for them.

The fact that their state went for Biden in the presidential race does not override voters' selections of Republican representativs in individual districts.

The Speaker of the House has no more power to undo the choices of the voters in those districts than the Texas Secretary of State has to undo the votes of the voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and Pennsylvania.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 01:51 PM

33. 85 of the members of Congress supporting Texas' lawsuit were from states won by Biden

And i suspect that 100% of them represent districts whose voters supported Trump over Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 12:02 PM

18. Seems you want a lawsuit filed to overturn their election.

I find that amusingly ironic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 12:05 PM

21. Ain't it, though?

Not even calling for a lawsuit. Just demanding the Speaker unilaterally do it herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 12:08 PM

22. Disagree. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice,

shame on me.

What people do, what I see them do, is what I base my relationships with them on. No way am I ever going to trust anyone who I see blatantly supporting illegitimately disenfranchising 80,000,000 voters for the sole purpose of installing their beloved lunatic candidate as supreme dictator of the United States, and ending democracy in my country in the process

Far as I'm concerned, they are false, seditious, and dangerous persons who don't have a shred of democratic integrity.

What they have done is unconscionable, and because of this they have no place in democratic government. Keeping weasels in the henhouse right after they've already attempted to kill your chickens can only result in a coop full of dead chickens in the near future.

They should not be seated, if not seating them is a possibility. Shame on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roisin Ni Fiachra (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 12:09 PM

24. You can disagree all you want. The law is the law and you're wrong

I can "disagree" with the law of gravity to my heart's content, but that's not going to keep a rock from falling to the ground when I drop it from a balcony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 12:12 PM

25. Wrong about what, exactly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roisin Ni Fiachra (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 12:14 PM

26. Read my post and then read your response disagreeing with it

That should answer your question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 12:22 PM

27. Meh. You are avoiding answering my question,

What specifically, is "wrong" about my post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roisin Ni Fiachra (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 01:52 PM

34. "if not seating them is a possibility"

It's not a possibility under the Constitution, so folks should move on from this argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 12:04 PM

20. Who expects honesty or a lack of hypocrisy from Republicans, any more?

Anybody?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 01:26 PM

32. They can hide behind legal technicality

Which they are always against in 4th Amendment cases and the like. They were only subscribing to the legal theory behind the TX lawsuit (no matter that is was a ridiculous one).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread