550
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
550 points (97.7% liked)
News
23627 readers
2499 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Removal from office takes a supermajority in the Senate, so maybe disqualification via the 14th does as well. That would presumably depend on Senate rules that currently don't cover it.
A simple majority ought to be sufficient, but it also ought to be sufficient for just about everything, but it's not.
14th didn't say that
14th didn't say it's up to Congress either. The Supreme Court said that, and now it's up to Congress to decide what that looks like. The constitution lets the legislative bodies setup their own rules for how a lot of things function.
If the Supes said it without merit then it can be ignored. Ban him from the ballot anyway.
I'm not sure I even disagree with the idea that it needs to be done at the Federal level. If individual states can do it, then Republicans will start declaring that everything they don't like is an insurrection (as their rhetoric already does on many issues) and remove Democrats from ballots.
Whether that means it has to be the legislature and what that looks like are different questions.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No it just keeps me from having to retype the same thing over and over. And of course it's from an opinion piece just as the supreme Court judges statement is an opinion piece
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.