Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

drray23

(7,789 posts)

8. thats the point

Reply to Miguelito Loveless (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 22, 2022, 01:33 PM

Apr 2022

I can't imagine a random backwater judge from a state having the power to make that determination. It could be easily abused. If she was indicted by the feds that would be another matter.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

16 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The MTG hearing on whether or not she should be barred from office [View all] drray23 Apr 2022 OP

You need to read the 14th amendment. Emile Apr 2022 #1

And no evidence has been presented that she did... brooklynite Apr 2022 #3

Given What You've Posted And Given The McCarthy Conference Call Exposure - Aren't..... global1 Apr 2022 #9

I think they are! Emile Apr 2022 #13

Yes, and? Effete Snob Apr 2022 #12

WHEN she is found eligible to be on the ballot, it will settle the Cawthorn suit as well brooklynite Apr 2022 #2

Not necessarily dsc Apr 2022 #6

And Biggs and Gosar nt AZSkiffyGeek Apr 2022 #7

No mention of a conviction being required... Miguelito Loveless Apr 2022 #4

thats the point drray23 Apr 2022 #8

The law Miguelito Loveless Apr 2022 #16

She is already fundraising on "Biden is a senile pervert". We should worry about their fundraising? Walleye Apr 2022 #5

what could be worse is the precedent it sets drray23 Apr 2022 #10

I really don't think there's much chance That this will succeed Walleye Apr 2022 #11

Yep Effete Snob Apr 2022 #14

I think her own testimony will make great opposition tv spots. Torchlight Apr 2022 #15