politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This is a lose-lose. If this is shot down, it’s just another case of presidents (and former presidents) being above the law. If this goes through, the republican states will use it against democratic candidates.
edit: If you don't think republican states would abuse this, let me remind you that republicans are still trying to impeach Biden just to retaliate for the Trump impeachments.
.
Maybe they shouldn't, but it's still a tough situation politically.
.
You're strawmanning me pretty hard (hopefully unintentionally). I'm not arguing for the courts to do anything; my point was that there will be negative consequences no matter what they do.
Your comment was literally arguing exactly that.
I'm going to be overly verbose with you since you appreciate specificity so much.
Edward Teach's comment:
Edward is implying that the court should ignore the political repercussions of their decision (i.e., "why should [they] care").
My response:
I am here acknowledging the salience of his point while also being intentionally non-committal. ("Maybe they shouldn't [care about the consequences]".) Maybe Edward is right that the supreme court should ignore the political fallout. I then return to my original point that it is a tough situation either way.
Edward Teach's comment:
Here he is straw manning me because he read too much into my original comment. I never argued that the court should or shouldn't do anything, only that there will be negative consequences either way. Edward assumed that the purpose behind my comment was to say the supreme court should rule in favor of Trump. This is not the case.
☝️this is you arguing whether the court should or shouldn’t do something.
you can be verbose or succinct; it changes nothing other than the time amount of you waste.
Now you're just repeating yourself. You didn't even read the comment, did you? You're right, this is a waste of time.
because I’m right
I did. the part of my comment you didn’t read is that it changes nothing.
that’s why I said it
Only if the Supreme Court, whose job it is to actually determine what is lawful according US Constitution (and then other federal law and precedent) decide they are not going to do their jobs anymore.
The whole reason Supreme Court justices have appointment for life is so that their decisions can't be used against them by those in power to punish for a ruling those in power don't like. Supremes have almost "plot armor" in this regard. What do they have to fear from making a ruling that republicans don't like?
Their billionaire sugar daddies will dump them?
Allowing our justice system to operate based on perceived political consequences seems like a terrible idea. Republicans will continue to be seditious trash regardless, holding one of them accountable for crimes they committed won't change that. Their moves should not even factor into what the justice department/courts does or doesn't do.
Democrats' guiding principle is "but what might Republicans do?" Context doesn't change that.
I think people are assuming that I'm recommending a course of action when my entire point is that either scenario will have negative consequences. That being said, I agree with everything you said here.
If not that, then people are confused about what your point was other than to generally be negative.
This whole "don't hold republicans accountable because they'll weaponize the courts" is such a meh argument.
They already weaponize the courts.
But so far, without any evidence of wrongdoing against Democrats they try to do this against, they have had zero success.
While there is actual assloads of evidence against people like Trump (and others).
It'll spend some time and resources from democrats, but it'll also put some of the worst republicans in jail.
Buddy they've had plenty of success. They'll bury you in paperwork if you stick your neck out. They already paid off the judge, they're just waiting for you.
So what you're saying is, they'll be insufferable assholes no matter what we do, and we should see to it that a criminal repays society for his crimes.
I don't see this as a special concern. They're going to do this no matter what.
This has nothing to do with the state cases, this is Federal & dealing with the Insurrection.
If a democratic former president incites an Insurrection &/or steals top secret documents & gives them to our enemies I hope they get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as well.
Isn't this assuming the republicans are operating in good faith? They aren't. They care more about what they can get away with than whether it's justified. I'm sure republican states could find other reasons to take Biden off of the ballet come the next election. There seem to be a lot more legal grey areas than we were aware of. (For example, before January 6th, who knew that the vice president could potentially steal an election?)
Treason & Insurrection are literally the only way a US citizen over the age of 35 can be removed from a federal ballot in the USA.
I wouldn't put it past them to label some Hunter Biden conspiracy theory bs "treason".
That said, I concede the point that it may not be as easy as I was implying. Or at least I hope its not that easy. Our democracy is looking fragile these days.
This is the exact reason why Treason is defined in the Constitution & has a very, very narrow definition.
I'm willing to be proven wrong since I'm no expert on constitutional law, but treason is constituted by: "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." You're right that the first part is very specific, but that second part about helping the enemies of the republic could be abused.