• Tinidril@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 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
      ·
      8 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
        8 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
            ·
            8 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
                ·
                8 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
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    The constitution doesn’t say who decides what qualifies as insurrection, so it is not at all clear that state courts have that authority. The federal government defines federal law, and state governments define state law. Likewise, federal courts adjudicate state law, and state courts adjudicate state law.

                    The amendment in question is in the Federal Constitution, not state constitutions. Therefore, defining what is or isn’t an insurrection is a matter for federal lawmakers, and adjudicating guilt is a matter for federal courts.

                    Yes, this is pretty straightforward for anyone who understands how our legal system functions.

                    Of course this is all separate from the practical implications of allowing states to make up their own definitions of “insurrection” and arbitrarily remove Democrats from ballots. Given the Republican party’s long history and recent escalation of underhanded tactics, it’s a guarantee that this would be abused and, if you had your way, they would have the cover of a Supreme Court ruling to back it up. Just a reminder, there are a lot more red states than blue.

          • Tinidril@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 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
            ·
            8 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
                8 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?

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

                    Here is an excerpt from the 14th

                    shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

                    Does Biden’s “open border policy” allow terrorists or foreign agents to sneak into the country? Is that not aid and comfort to our enemies?

                    Sure, you and I think that is a ridiculous interpretation, but will a judge in Mississippi? Do you really believe that the current Republican party wouldn’t abuse the fuck out of this? Republicans started using that rhetoric the moment people started talking about applying it to Trump. This needs to be defined at the Federal level.

                    I am not giving them power. In red states, they are the power.

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

                    Multiple times in this conversation you have used the “so what your saying…” construct with nonsense that I definitely did not say or imply. I’m not entertaining that anymore.