This was actually a 9-0 decision. Being a cynic is definitely justified by the state of our government, but you should have some ideas what your being cynical about.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
So we’re just gonna allow a corrupt party to simply decide what words mean on their own?
Hold up, George Orwell on line three…
This was actually a 9-0 decision. Being a cynic is definitely justified by the state of our government, but you should have some ideas what your being cynical about.
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.
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.
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.
What they said was that the Constitution is not the law of the land.
No, they really didn’t.
Yes, they did.
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
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.
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.
And what does the constitution say about who decides when someone has participated in an insurrection? Exact constitutional text please.
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
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.
Removed by mod