• 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

      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.

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

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

                    Where did I mention an amendment? The constitution gives Congress the ability to write laws. Those laws are not constitutional amendments or part of the Constitution in any way. They are part of the US criminal code. Well defined laws have been foundational to modern justice systems since at least the time of Hammurabi.

              • 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.

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

                    Great. The constitution is clear. Super. Tell me where the constitution tells us who decides if an insurrection has occurred. Round round round we go.

                    Republicans say Biden must be removed from the ballot because he allows “open borders” allowing the country’s enemies past the gate. Is that insurrection? Are they wrong? How do we know? Who decides?