550
submitted 9 months ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago
[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Nothing here says that one party gets to define anything. Also, the court did not say that the Senate must agree by a 2/3 majority, only that Congress must decide. The text of the constitution does clearly make section 3 self executing but, unhelpfully, it does not tell us who determines that an insurrection occurred or whether a particular person is guilty of participation.

It clouds the issue even further that the previous vote failed in the Senate, but would have passed by a simple majority. It could well be that some who voted in favor of impeachment might have voted otherwise if a simple majority were required. I think a simple majority should be sufficient in this case, but that vote never occurred.

Personally, I'm not sure it would be a good thing to remove Trump from the ballot. I think it will be far better for the nation to defeat him at the ballot box. If Trump can actually win, then we are doomed anyways.

Trump is uniquely bad as a human being, but he is not uniquely bad as a potential Republican president. There are plenty of Republicans that would be worse, simply because they are competent and, for many milquetoast Americans, far more persuasive.

[-] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

So you think that candidates should ve defeated at the ballot box and not by judicial decree, but judicial decree is perfectly okay for policymaking.

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

I am specifically talking about the current situation. It's no good to defeat Trump if we don't also defeat Trumpism.

Judicial review is always about policymaking. That is frankly a massive subject. Where the constitution and/or legislation is unclear, yes, it typically falls to the courts to interpret. However, that's not even terribly relevant here, since what the court did is throw it to Congress to make the policy decision.

[-] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

What they said was that the Constitution is not the law of the land.

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago
[-] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

That's from an opinion piece, not that anyone could tell by your reference to it. I've already explained quite clearly where I disagree.

BTW: Pasting an image of text with no link or citation really sucks. It's lazy, and forces others to go search out the source.

[-] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

No it just keeps me from having to retype the same thing over and over. And of course it's from an opinion piece just as the supreme Court judges statement is an opinion piece

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

No it just keeps me from having to retype the same thing over and over.

So anyone who wants to know where it comes from has to type it to do a search. Yeah, that's not being an asshole at all. If your that lazy, just paste in a damn hyperlink.

[-] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

This is wild because Obama got his nom yanked because Mitch said "the institutions shouldn't do their jobs; let the American people decide if he should be able to nominate a judge!"

You dont saturate the airwaves with radical fascist conspiracist bullshit and then give the listeners and fans the reins to government

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

What does this have to do with the topic we are discussing? Yeah, that was complete bullshit. If the argument is that the Supreme Court is illegitimate, then I'm with you. However, this particular ruling probably wouldn't be impacted by a change in the makeup of the court since, as I pointed out, it was a 9-0 ruling. Replace all three of Trump's nominees with judges that agree with you, and you still lose 6-3.

Personally I think Biden should have stuffed the court with one judge for each Federal district (13). Even if he did that, and all the new judges took your perspective, you still lose 9-4.

[-] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

The Constitution says what it says. If I lost 6-3 it doesnt change the fact that they decided that the Constitution does not say what it says, and is not the law of the land. We can easily speculate why they ruled that way based on exactly what we know about their corruption. They rejected the Constitution; this is not debateable.

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

And what does the constitution say about who decides when someone has participated in an insurrection? Exact constitutional text please.

[-] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

According to your very own interpretation with this question there is no such thing as a crime because every time a crime is committed someone has to step in and define what a crime is. We can't say a victim was murdered because there's no one to determine what a murder is. Fraud and larceny cannot possibly be crimes because the Constitution nor the Senate have appointed someone to define what larceny and fraud is.

Do you not see how psychotic resorting to such ridiculous semantics are?

Why is everyone so desperate to back up the SCOTUS claim that 'there is no law, therefore there can be no disorder'?

It's not even a "dogs can't play basketball!" ruling; it's a "there are no dogs" ruling.

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

Are you really not aware that one of the primary jobs of Congress is to literally define what a crime is? That's what laws are. There is literally a statute (several actually) passed by Congress that does define what murder, fraud, and larceny are. That's the cornerstone of due process. A crime isn't a crime unless there is a law being broken. You have failed your constitution test.

[-] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

It's the constitution, not Webster's dictionary. It is not the Constitution's job to define every single word that is within the Constitution. Participating in an insurrection is participating in an insurrection, which is what happened on January 6th. The Constitution clearly states that anyone who does such is ineligible to hold office again. This is not complicated at all. What is happening is a slow coup

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

Read your argument above then read this response again. You are arguing that the court is overriding what the constitution says, then arguing that it doesn't matter that the constitution says nothing on the subject. Your mind is a really weird place.

this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
550 points (97.7% liked)

News

23627 readers
2764 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS