• 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.

        • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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

          • 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

              That is the worst case of obtuse misreading ever. The Constitution is very clear on this. The SCOTUS is ignoring it and making up conditions that DO NOT EXIST.

              • 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?

        • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

          • 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.

            • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              And you are telling me that an actual amendment was passed concerning a crime that nobody seems to know exists or what it is or how to define it?

              • 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.

            • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yeah, I just cant wait to see what happens when everyone keeps taking down the roadblocks to fascism and then gets all surprised when they get a fascist government installed which can never be removed, so yeah, okay, you win: the SCOTUS was protecting Biden.

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

                I don’t know that they did it to protect Biden, but I know the Republicans have been maneuvering to make that play. That could just as easily be how fascism bypasses roadblocks.