You are only browsing one thread in the discussion! All comments are available on the post page.

Return

runswithjedi ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    ImplyingImplications ,

    This. The “let voters decide” argument is bullshit. “Sure he broke the rules but it should be up to the people if they care about that kind of thing”. Since when do courts care about what the general public think?

    Psionicsickness ,

    What courts? Trump was never convicted? These removals are all just because high placed hippies, “feel like” Trump’s actions were, “insurrectiony”.

    PowerCrazy ,

    Since when do courts care about what the general public think

    That is one of the pillars of justice in a so-called democracy.

    NovaPrime ,
    @NovaPrime@lemmy.ml avatar

    Not at all. The courts are intended to be neutral arbiters of law itself. Congress is the body that should care about what people think.

    PowerCrazy ,

    The law is open to interpretation since language is imprecise. Thinking that the law is some kind of rigid holy truth is extremely naive at best. Or at worst is fascist.

    NovaPrime ,
    @NovaPrime@lemmy.ml avatar

    I’m not disagreeing with that. I’m disagreeing with your assertion that courts should care about what the people think. If anything, when the law is ambiguous the courts look at the legislative session notes, speeches, drafts…etc to try and figure out what the original intent was (or throw it back to legislature to rework). I never said it’s some kind of rigid holy truth.

    PowerCrazy ,

    Well the original intent of the insurrection clause was to prevent the same senators/congressmen who seceded and started the civil war from being eligible for federal office. This obviously doesn’t apply in Trumps case since there was no civil war and Trump was the lawfully elected president of the US at the time.

    NovaPrime ,
    @NovaPrime@lemmy.ml avatar

    And this has to do what with your original comment and assertion?

    PowerCrazy ,

    It was responding to your original assertion.

    The courts are intended to be neutral arbiters of law itself

    Which in Trumps case has nothing to do with the original intent of the law (insurrection clause, since no insurrection has taken place.)

    As for my original assertion. The General Public is absolutely the folks the justice system should be accountable to, after-all government is supposed to be FOR the people. And if The People want to vote for someone who wants to overthrow the government, the courts have no business saying they can’t.

    So if you think the court shouldn’t care about the general public, then the insurrection clause doesn’t apply. If you think the court should care about the general public, then they have to let the voters decide.
    In either case Trump belongs on the ballot.

    heavyboots ,
    @heavyboots@lemmy.ml avatar

    This. We tried that last election cycle and be wasn’t happy with the results from the people and attempted to falsify and overthrow them. NO SECOND CHANCES.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •