• Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

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

                • Tinidril@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  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.

                • Tinidril@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  What the fuck are you on about now? This has nothing to do with prosecuting Trump and his conspirators. You seem to have me pigeonholed as a Trump supporter or something. I’m commenting on a single ruling on a subject that is just as likely to damage Biden as Trump.

                  Republicans say Biden is guilty of insurrection for allowing illegal aliens across the border, and will happily remove him from every ballot they can because of it. It’s absolute bullshit of course, but Republicans aren’t shy about passing bullshit or ruling based on bullshit. If that shit show sounds great to you, then you go ahead and override the court and send it to the states.

                • Tinidril@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  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.

      • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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.