Anonymous wrote:R.I.P. Democracy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No brainer decision. I called it as 9-0 repeatedly, happy to be proven right.

The Senate refused to convict him based on the fact that impeachment power is moot after the president is out of office. So I guess there is a huge loophole that makes failed coups unpunishable.

The problem with your logic is that half of the country views January 6th as an insurrection, and half of the country views it as a riot stemming from a suspicion that the election was stolen via mail in ballots, etc.

It’s akin to half of the country viewing abortion as a medical procedure, versus half of the country viewing abortion as infanticide.

The two sides don’t see eye to eye on this, and preventing the man from being president based on one’s sides view will not go over well. Let the people vote — isn’t that democracy after all?

DP. No, majority rules is not how the rule of law works. Even if unpopular, the Constitution controls. Sorry Charlie.

You can start a constitutional convention to five insurrectionists a pass and overturn that part of the Fourteenth Amendment. If you want to.

You really aren’t responding to what that PP is saying at all. The Constitution does control, on that we agree, and apparently 9 of the SCOTUS justices too.

PP said that if people vote for Trump, then he should be president. But he is disqualified under the Constitution. So whether he wins the election or not, being elected by the people isn't democracy. It is just making a statement, like voting for Felix the Cat.

Nope. Reread. PP is saying that whether he is disqualified is a matter of opinion because not all people are seeing Jan 6th as an insurrection which would trigger disqualification.

That's what PP is saying. But whether the sky is blue is not a matter of opinion. Even if 25% of the country thinks it's yellow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a no-brainer. But he won't get immmunity.

Yes, he will. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are his slavering slaves. And, it would appear that Sotomajor, Kagan, and Brown have joined their party.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP Senate in the second impeachment hearing, said there was no recourse for someone who had since left office and left it to the courts.

The courts are leaving it to the Congress.

I guess insurrection is perfectly legal in our country with these kinds of loopholes.

At least for the republicans.

Impeachment is one way to disqualify someone from future office. Another is spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment. What sort of loophole do you think you're seeing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP Senate in the second impeachment hearing, said there was no recourse for someone who had since left office and left it to the courts.

The courts are leaving it to the Congress.

I guess insurrection is perfectly legal in our country with these kinds of loopholes.

At least for the republicans.

Impeachment is one way to disqualify someone from future office. Another is spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment. What sort of loophole do you think you're seeing?

What exactly is spelled out? Explain and cite please.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP Senate in the second impeachment hearing, said there was no recourse for someone who had since left office and left it to the courts.

The courts are leaving it to the Congress.

I guess insurrection is perfectly legal in our country with these kinds of loopholes.

At least for the republicans.

Impeachment is one way to disqualify someone from future office. Another is spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment. What sort of loophole do you think you're seeing?

What exactly is spelled out? Explain and cite please.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP Senate in the second impeachment hearing, said there was no recourse for someone who had since left office and left it to the courts.

The courts are leaving it to the Congress.

I guess insurrection is perfectly legal in our country with these kinds of loopholes.

At least for the republicans.

Impeachment is one way to disqualify someone from future office. Another is spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment. What sort of loophole do you think you're seeing?

What exactly is spelled out? Explain and cite please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Biden is reelected his first act should be to enlarge the US Supreme Court to 13 and appoint five liberal/progressive women under age 50. Assuming Dems keep the Senate this can be accomplished in record time by holding all five confirmation hearings simultaneously.

This is why no one should take leftist Democrats seriously. What's next? The next Republican president will add seven justices to the US Supreme Court? Where soes it end?

The are 13 circuit courts, up from 9 and 5 over history. So having one justice for each circuit makes perfect sense. Our population and the corresponding case load has grown exponentially. Having a court that can handle that load would make some sense, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP Senate in the second impeachment hearing, said there was no recourse for someone who had since left office and left it to the courts.

The courts are leaving it to the Congress.

I guess insurrection is perfectly legal in our country with these kinds of loopholes.

At least for the republicans.

Impeachment is one way to disqualify someone from future office. Another is spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment. What sort of loophole do you think you're seeing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump can stay on the ballot.

Correct decision.

What happened to States Rights that they harped on in their confirmation hearings not to mention giving the individual states the right to ban abortions. May these Nine quivering Quisling-Laval doppelgangers meet the same end as the originals!

In fact, the fortitude of the justices to stand by law and principal knowing that loud and rabid small thinkers like you are what they’d face, is exactly why they’re on the SCOTUS and you’re not. Thank god.
This is not a political decision, it’s about the sanctity of our democracy and going by the rule of law without bias. Certainly, the irony of who it is preserving at this moment is not lost on me. But this is where we are. And how it needs to be. On this front. This was not a case trying Trump on insurrection. Hell, this wasn’t about Trump. It was about state overreach. That all being said, the insurrection case can’t get here fast enough.