Maine’s top election official could face an impeachment attempt in the state Legislature over her decision to keep former President Donald Trump off the Republican primary ballot.
At least one Republican lawmaker has vowed to pursue impeachment against Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows despite long odds in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.
Bellows said Friday that she had no comment on the impeachment effort, but said she was duty-bound by state law to make a determination on three challenges brought by registered Maine voters. She reiterated that she suspended her decision pending an anticipated appeal by Trump in Superior Court.
“Under Maine law, I have not only the authority but the obligation to act,” she said. “I will follow the Constitution and the rule of law as directed by the courts,” she added.
Insane? There are law professors writing editorials in the New York Times about how, in their expert opinion, Trump actually is eligible. You might think they’re wrong (clearly the Maine secretary of state does) but this is a genuinely ambiguous and unsettled matter of law; there’s no “insane” side.
It’s not a hard concept that when someone attempts coup, they should not be allowed back in power. Many many countries have put leaders in prison for less. Law has to mean something, or your country and institutions will not last. He has broken so many laws while in office it’s not even funny, and we’ve mostly turned a blind eye to it until very very recently.
What they claim is to disagree whether it constituted a coup attempt. Some say “it was unsuccessful” which is of course rather a dimwitted claim. Some still insist it was merely a protest and not a coup attempt. Nobody seems to dispute that Trump was involved and encouraged it. Anyhow, like most things republicans argue, they have a preconceived result and make up nonsense to support it, and it’s very biased - imagine if it had been democrats and Obama involved in something like that? They’d still be completely losing their shit about it and they couldn’t find enough harsh things to say about the participants.
The law isn’t about should in that sense of the word. If Satan, the Devil, was running for President, whether or not he was legally eligible to do so would be an entirely separate question from whether or not people should vote for him. The article I linked to argues that
That might plausibly be true no matter how bad Trump is.
This is a spurious as Trump’s lawyers claiming he didn’t swear to support the Constitution, only protect it, which is why he can violate it and still run again.
Playing devil’s advocate doesn’t actually mean you need to defend both the literal devil that exists and also the mythological one. It’s an expression. No need to take it so literally.
That has to be top 5 of the dumbest arguments I have heard.
That’s interesting because the Times also just put out an article referencing Federalist professors who determined he should be disqualified. Looks like they’re playing both sides, lol.
Not surprising. They are still in the horse race mode.
Kind of surreal to see someone arguing that an insurrection isn’t a disqualifying action for a presidential candidate and that it’s clearly just a matter of opinion with a legit argument