I don’t claim to be any kind of a great legal mind, let alone one that can predict which cases will go to the Supreme Court and which ones won’t, but I’ll say this: I honestly believe that these insurrectionist disqualification clause cases may end up having to be decided by the highest court in the land. Here are the broad brush strokes.

Marjorie Taylor Green responded to a lawsuit which invoked the disqualification clause as a means of getting her off the ballott. She asked for an injunction and that was denied.

Now, contrast that with the March 4 ruling by a federal judge in North Carolina, who ruled that the 1872 law which gave amnesty to ex-Confederates provided amnesty as well to all future insurrectionists, effectively nullifying Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment [which states: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress…who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress…shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof“] and blocking a similar challenge brought by North Carolina voters to Madison Cawthorn’s ability to be on the ballot for reelection.

You see where this is going? This is at a black v. white level now and rulings like that on cases with a similar, in this case identical fact pattern, are a cry for the law to be clarified, if not clearly rewritten.

So in North Carolina, there’s a hearing on the appeal of that ruling, on May 3. Marge is going to court this Friday. And she is not happy. She went to Mother Tucker to unload.

Now this is foreboding.

I stand by my initial impression. This law needs clarification. If it can be clarified in these two hearings pertaining to Greene and Cawthorn, then that’s the best case scenario. If not, I think these cases are going to have to go up on appeal and maybe they will go to the Supreme Court.

It does make sense. You have a couple of no-talent trolls, who got into office on Donald Trump’s MAGA coattails and then who participated in the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6 to keep Trump in office and the duly elected president out, i.e. a coup d’etat. That is a case of first impression if ever a definition was needed of one, wouldn’t you say?

Now, one last comment, and this is what has me rubbing my hands together in gleeful anticipation of this Friday’s hearing: Greene is a liar par excellence. She’s the textbook definition of a perjury trap. I can’t wait to get a look at the transcript.


Help keep the site running, consider supporting.


  1. Without that office, Margarine Tumor Gangrene is back on her already preordained course of being a nobody. Of course she’s mad. But what that Georgia Karen doesn’t understand…well, that could fill a couple of those libraries she’s in the tank for “cleansing”. The relevant TL;DR: she lacks the basic brainpower to get out of this trap. And she’s far from the last one who will face that reality.

  2. IANAL, but this sounds like a civil case, which means the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. There is enough information from leaks of the J6C to prove her involvement. Her public comments and tweets are just icing on the cake. She was just unlucky enough to not draw a tRump judge, like Maddie did. I’m sure all the lawyer “talking heads” are eagerly anticipating her “arguments”, as well.

  3. If this case rests upon her being charged for her part in the insurrection, then Garland had better get off his ass and charge her. Being a representative, senator or president does not shield one from the law or the consequences of breaking it….or at least it shouldn’t. I can guarantee you if someone primaried her who had also taken part in the J6 insurrection, she would not hesitate to use the constitution against that person (well, someone on her campaign staff would have to tell her what is actually in that august document…).

    • Oh, Spike…given that she’s from Georgia and that Fulton County has a DA looking into J6 down there, do you REALLY think that is the only possible legal trap ahead of her?

  4. Since my civics education in Jr. High and High School was so long ago (almost to the fifty year anniversary of graduation from H.S.) I decided to check on this and am glad I did. I was thinking that when different rulings on the same law are issued from different federal circuits then SCOTUS would take the case to resolve it – the purpose being to ensure consistent application of the law throughout the land. However, while a so-called Circuit Split is considered a compelling reason in SCOTUS’ own rules for taking up a case there is no provision in either the Constitution or their rules saying they HAVE to take up the case and resolve the issue.

    Sometimes they don’t, and on some significant issues such as searches of minors to use one example. So, in theory whether this 1872 law that was blown off (and that’s exactly what that asshole did – because it was a fucking Republican being targeted) by a District Judge in NC (4th Circuit) but deemed valid by one in GA (11th Circuit) would seem as the term goes “ripe” for resolution by SCOTUS. However, I don’t think the six Federalist Society Fascists on SCOTUS are going to want to touch this particular issue and sadly, it takes FOUR votes in conference (where they meet to look at potential cases) to grant Cert. The only thing that makes me think there’s a tiny chance they will weigh in is that although there are two different Circuits involved both states are southern, and both are with the changes in GA demographics and voting patterns purple. How this might affect the entire GOP Southern Strategy will play a role but I wouldn’t claim to understand how conservative minds would weigh all the factors even before Trump.

    • But, see, the background for this “split” decision is the very reason that it WON’T be heard by the Supreme Court. The 1872 Act SPECIFICALLY exempted “Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States” from being affected by the “Amnesty.” (One can argue the specificity of the meaning–or the intent–of the “thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses” as it relates to how it applies to the modern era. The Founding Fathers never anticipated the existence of radio or television when they wrote the First Amendment and yet the Amendment covers both of those by later acts of Congress. So, just because the 1872 law specifies the Congresses at the time of the Civil War, it shouldn’t necessarily mean its terms cannot apply to later instances.) You and I can agree the judge in Cawthorn’s case was wrong (because he was, based on Cawthorn’s words and actions) but there’s NO WAY any of those self-described “Constitutionalists” and “originalists” sitting on the current Supreme Court are going to want to get involved by breaking their oft-stated vow that “the role of judges is not to make laws.” The only way to fully get rid of the terms of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is for Congress to pass an amendment (which would then effectively say that “Why sure–you can try to overthrow the duly-elected government or simply advocate it and we’ll still let you participate in it as a member of the government”).
      But, in Green’s case, the judge is going to make her fight to show that her actions did not violate or run afoul of the Constitution, the very document that she SWORE to “uphold and defend” when she entered Congress–and not just the parts that she agrees with.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here