Court Rules on Marjorie Taylor Greene

It is a good day for America. Well, that kind of claim is relative these days, but Majorie Taylor Greene has been ruled able to run for election once again. For months, Democrats have tried to unfairly punish all those who questioned their 2016 election results, but ultimately failed to ban popular GOP politicians from running for election.

A Georgia judge has ruled that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is qualified to be on the ballot this year to run for re-election and did not participate in an “insurrection” on Jan. 6.

Administrative Law Judge Charles Beaudrot made his ruling after holding a hearing in April when lawyers for and against Greene could be heard. Beaudrot will deliver his recommendation to RINO secretary of state Brad Raffensperger, who is expected to comply with Beaudrot because he is receiving a primary challenge this year from a pro-Trump competitor.

Leftist activists used language in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which claims that nobody can serve in Congress “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same” to make the case for Greene’s forced removal from the ballot.

Attorney Ron Fein claimed Greene “urged, encouraged and helped facilitate violent resistance to our own government, our democracy and our Constitution,” because she made comments claiming that the Jan. 6 protest on the Capitol would be a “1776 moment.” Greene’s attorney James Bopp noted that Greene never advocated for any violence to be committed on Jan. 6 and was actually put in potential danger by violent actions that occurred on that day.

Judge Beaudrot ultimately sided with the rationale provided by Greene’s attorney when making his decision.

“Whatever the exact parameters of the meaning of ‘engage’ as used in the 14th Amendment, and assuming for these purposes that the Invasion was an insurrection, Challengers have produced insufficient evidence to show that Rep. Greene ‘engaged’ in that insurrection after she took the oath of office on January 3, 2021,” he wrote.

Beaudrot said that regardless of whether Greene’s “public statements and heated rhetoric” added to the political rancor leading to the violence on Jan. 6, she is protected under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution “no matter how aberrant [her opinions] may be”

“Whether the Invasion of January 6 amounted to an insurrection is an issue of tremendous importance to all Americans and one that may yet be addressed. However, it is not a question for this Court to answer at this time. Because the Court finds Rep. Greene did not “engage” in the Invasion, either as a direct participant or in its planning and execution, after taking her oath on January 3, 2021, it is not necessary to address the question of whether the events of January 6 constituted an “insurrection” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment,” Beaudrot concluded in his ruling.

The Left’s attempt to nullify democracy in Georgia has been soundly rejected. Greene is likely to appear on the ballot, and she will be a shoo-in due to her immense popularity among her constituents.