• kbin_space_program@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    8 months ago

    Not charged by a court, the US Supreme Court has the opinion that it exclusively has to be Congress to charge him with insurrection.

    • Funderpants @lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      8 months ago

      Which is an insane position to take given how highly partisan congress is, to the point that denying the insurrection even took place is a common everyday occurrence in Trumps party.

      So we’ve learned that all it takes to do an insurrection is to have a party that supports it with just enough power to prevent congress acting.

      • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        It is a reasonable decision given what the law says, which is all that should matter to a court. No goddamn “spirit of the law” should be invoked, otherwise you enter the realm of the arbitrary. Now, the issue is that the system that should ensure perpetual creative destruction in order to bring out the best and most willing individuals to power has failed to do so, which is the problem we should be focusing on, instead of trying to override reasonable laws in order to prevent this or that lunatic from getting this or that seat

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          It is a reasonable decision given what the law says, which is all that should matter to a court. No goddamn “spirit of the law” should be invoked, otherwise you enter the realm of the arbitrary.

          This is the same court that abandoned standing entirely so they could rule in favor of a bigoted website designer. That ship has sailed.

        • quindraco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          It is a reasonable decision given what the law says, which is all that should matter to a court.

          There is no way to reconcile this decision, which contradicts the law, as “reasonable” with “what the law says”.

    • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah he was already found to have participated in insurrection by Colorado’s courts as a finding of fact. If the standard was that it has to be proven in court they’ve already done that.

    • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      During his impeachment trials, the GOP argued that impeachments are not a criminal proceeding, they are a political one- so they acquitted on politics saying that this is for the courts to decide. Now that the matter is in the courts, they argue it’s for congress only, not the courts.

      With a justice system like this one, who needs torches and pitchforks? /s

    • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      Which is a reasonable take, given the law, which is what should matter to a court

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        The law, specifically the Constitution, states that no person shall be allowed to hold office who has participated in insurrection. Trump was found to have committed insurrection as a matter of fact by the Colorado Supreme Court.

        So the law is not in his favor, and it’s yet another example of SCOTUS carving out exceptions for Conservatives using tortured logic. Our ancestors who fought in the Civil War would be ashamed.