• 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

              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
                ·
                8 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
                  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

              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
                ·
                8 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
                  ·
                  8 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.

            • 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.

              • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 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
                  ·
                  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.