• foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Why are they not barred from doing so if they were involved with a failed insurrection?

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      8 months ago

      They are but you can’t challenge it until they run and even then its not worth it to fight it until they’re elected at which point you ask for an injunction to prevent them being installed while you actually challenge their ability to be seated.

      • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        They are but you can’t challenge it until they run

        It looks like all these people are already running though?

        and even then its not worth it to fight it until they’re elected

        Disagreed, just in general it is always worth fighting to keep anti-democractic insurrectionists out of government, plus I could see a court saying something like

        “Well, we don’t like allowing insurrectionists in government, but we also don’t like going against the will of the people, and they did win. Maybe if this has been challenged far enough in advance that the Republicans had a reasonable opportunity to find a different candidate to run we’d be ok doing this, but now it just feels anti-democractic… Karl Popper? Never heard of him.”

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          You misunderstand, the legal battle isn’t worth it until they win because the battle will be expensive as fuck and if they lose it never needed to have money spent on it.

          Politics are a marathon not a sprint and a big part of that is knowing when to fight and lose money for a pyrrhic victory and when the ends don’t justify the means.

            • Madison420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              No one is saying that, I’m saying not every fight is worth the expense, some are some aren’t she you need to have reserves for the ones that are.

              • badbrainstorm @lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Most of these hillbillies probably barely have the money to campaign, let alone hire a defense team to make a case of it in court. Just say, nah, You’re ineligible to run. And as if the courts don’t have ridiculous, frivolous cases all the time anyway

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Indeed, so why spend money fighting a non issue when there are actual issues to spend on. Doesn’t matter if its frivolous or not it will cost money to pursue.

                  • badbrainstorm @lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    To uphold the constitution!?

                    These courts no concerns ever burning taxpayer dollars on much less pressing issues all the time!

                    I guarantee that if they don’t stand up now, it has nothing to do with legal cost. It has absolutely everything to do with fear of backlash from ludicrous dipshits, and having to have the spine to tell them to fucking deal with it