The dispute comes from Colorado — but it could have national implications for Trump and his political fate.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    205 months ago

    I don’t think it does. Soldiers are already required to disobey illegal orders anyway.

    • Clay_pidgin
      link
      English
      3
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      That’s a good point. Does that extend explicitly to orders from people not in their chain of command? There MUST be something in the UCMJ about it.

      Under Murray’s (Colorado’s) argument that the insurrection disqualification is self enforcing and necessarily instant, that would mean Pence was the president until the Biden transition, wouldn’t it?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        45 months ago

        No, Murray’s argument wouldn’t apply to someone already occupying the office. Unfortunately, once someone is actually holding the office, they can only be removed by impeachment.

        • Clay_pidgin
          link
          English
          35 months ago

          I don’t think I agree with that, and I did hear one of the male justices (I can’t match names to voices) ask about it. Impeachment is provided as a means to remove someone from office, but nowhere does it say that it’s the ONLY way to remove someone.