Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack
Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
