Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was appealing a federal judge’s ruling allowing a challenge to her eligibility to run for reelection to proceed. Keep in mind if the left had won this case even if you do not like MTG or what she stands for – this puts every candidate going forward of both parties on the line.
It was a great turn of events when a judge in Georgia ruled Friday that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) can run for reelection after “a group of voters challenged the congresswoman’s eligibility because of allegations that she participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol after the 2020 presidential election.”
Judge Beaudrot issued his Initial Decision on May 6, 2022, finding that challengers failed to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence and that the Respondent (MTG) is qualified to be a candidate for Representative for Georgia’s 14th Congressional District. Judge Beaudrot’s Initial Decision and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are hereby adopted. Read below:
Justice was served and I am very pleased with this decision because had she lost her appeal there would be no candidate or sitting Senator or Congressman/woman safe from this sort of tyrannical harassment.
PoliticsRewritten 
Things aren’t always as they seem, in politics. I’m not sure keeping her off the ballot was even the goal. Presuming that her District would still support her in the Primary…..I think the true aim was putting her on the stand……and letting the voters see her ‘performance’, with an eye toward the General Election. She didn’t do herself any favors.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, if it were all fair game I suppose it would not be politics. I would prefer, however, that they show the same treatment to the Democrats as they do to the Republicans. It has become a known fact that the political bias and the “say as I do, not as I say crowd” are causing disruptions and mayhem. AOC and The Squad, Schumer, Schiff, Pelosi … each party has their issues and jokers. None play fair in the dirty Beltway and true, not all things are as they seem.
LikeLike
I do not find her repulsive. I do believe she is very abrasive but I am sure if she was young and cute like
AOWAOC she would get away with a lot more just like AOC does. It is a double standard in the swamp and it stinks.LikeLiked by 1 person
Layla,
young and cute like AOW
blushing
But I’m glad to accept the compliment!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t you love typos!?! Sorry, I cannot leave it but you are pretty not cute!
LikeLike
I would not make that comparison but we each have our own opinion of MTG. I meant no ill will regarding her looks or anyone else after all AOC often refers to her looks and talks about how the Republicans don’t like her because they “want her.” She is a narcissist and has amassed quite a following of useful idiots.
LikeLike
Not true that all useful idiots need leaders. Sometimes all they need is to believe in is the same heretical idiotic ideology (ala COMINTERN) from a “radically atheist universe”. Then they learn to play jazz, but for all the wrong reasons (ala Harry Tuttle. Eventually even their “heretical subversion” gets absorbed into that idiotic ideology. What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger (Nietzsche).
LikeLiked by 1 person
…as they see themselves as “independent agents” serving on behalf of that “historically determined and inevitable” “Big Other” (idiotic ideology) like Communism or “progressivism”. Even their infrastructure limited their cooperation as “revolutionary cells” to two ‘other’ individuals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Replacement for bad link, above comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, the Ayatollah Khomeini’s “Veleyaat al Fiqh (Guardianship of the Jurists) heresy comes to, and is accepted in America. How comforting to know that “judges” can now decide who our future leaders are allowed to be… tsk-tsk. An America “secular theocracy” is born.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quite sad FJ when you really think about.
LikeLike
The precedent is DISGUSTING and should be overturned. Judicial over-reach on steroids! Further comments below.
LikeLike
Politics is pure filth — which I think is true no matter who gets involved in it. I also think this is the reason the founding fathers limited our exposure to electioneering and other absurdities to a single day every two years. Any number of days more than that would destroy America’s democratic ideals. And, in any case, the founding fathers (being politicians themselves) probably knew that as a practical matter, new election cycles begin the day after Election Day.
I don’t give MTG much thought at all. She’s not my representative. Her behavior in the House is precisely what the founding fathers anticipated from the lower house; in setting it up that way, the founders gave voters a taste of radical emotionalism realizing that it would be enough to pacify them while adults in the room go about their more important tasks.
Two thousand years from now, people will still be talking about Jesus of Nazareth; no one will remember Marjorie Taylor Green.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Politics is pure filth — which I think is true no matter who gets involved in it.” and “Two thousand years from now, people will still be talking about Jesus of Nazareth; no one will remember Marjorie Taylor Green.”
I could not agree more.
LikeLike
The lawsuit should have been thrown out, as the plaintiff’s had no “standing” with which to make said petition to the Court.
LikeLiked by 1 person
While I do tend to agree with you on the issue of “standing,” I at the same time recall some aggravation when a lawyer sued the Federal Elections Commission (I think) alleging that Obama was ineligible to serve as president. I thought that had the courts allowed that petition to proceed, then we would not have had ad nauseam claims that Obama was an illegitimate president. Then you had all those claims about “doctored birth certificates” and so forth. It reached a level of idiocy … and by virtue of my comment, continues sixteen years later. If we err, then let us do that on the side of caution. In this case, we have a ruling that becomes (in the case of MTG) precedent-setting. These people may be able to petition another administrative law court in another state, but they’re done in GA. I think.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I believe the difference in cases was that Obama was currently in office. In the MTG case, it was a lawsuit about some currently non-existent “imminent future possibility” hence, what I believe, constitutes a lack of Article III standing. But as for “prudential standing” or “political subdivision standing”… who knows?
Few legal doctrines confound federal courts and litigants more than those governing the issue of standing. One of the requirements to bring a claim in federal court is the establishment of Article III standing—that is, a would-be plaintiff must establish at the outset of a case that he or she has suffered (or imminently will suffer) a concrete, particularized “injury in fact” to a legally protected interest, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged action, and that a favorable judgment would likely redress the injury.
Yet even if a plaintiff satisfies these criteria, other standing doctrines may still prevent a federal court from hearing his or her case. Among these are the doctrines of prudential standing and political subdivision standing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Tenth Circuit recently addressed both of these doctrines in a case the court has now heard three times on issues of standing—and likely will again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Legally that is correct.
LikeLike
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
LikeLike
btw – I overlooked the fact that the MTG case was in State of Georgia, not federal court, so Article III likely doesn’t apply? Sorry to confuse myself and everyone else.
LikeLiked by 1 person