• TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)A
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    5 months ago

    The insurrection bit isn’t even up for debate, he has been found to be an insurrectionist. It is only if we are going to follow what the constitution plainly spells out, or find that Presidents are above the law and start the reign of Kings of The Former United States of America.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      Ah yes but you see they didn’t specifically write the word “President” in the Amendment, and SCOTUS ruled that the President isn’t an “officer” of the United States in a completely unrelated case with unrelated sections of law. So now we have to wait and see if SCOTUS is going to put the President above the law or not. And they almost assuredly aren’t going to do it before the Election. Which totally isn’t because they’re afraid of what happens if he still somehow wins after they rule against him…

      This unhinged semi satirical rant brought to you by staying up way too late.

      • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)A
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        If the SCOTUS were to put President outside of the constitution like that, they have all but declared the office of President a King, and the 14th amendment has no barring on the office at that point anyways. And a King has no want for a “Supreme Court”, and would dismantle them as one of the first acts in power. A King dislikes and fears oversight, so really the Court is deciding if they will continue on, or if they and the whole US experiment is over.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Well, if we want to game theory this road (We shouldn’t, being that tired is an altered mental state but I love wild hypotheticals), Kings absolutely use courts to help maintain their legitimacy. So do dictators. As an example one of the things in Venezuela was packing the high court so they couldn’t protest the de-powering of the legislature. I do agree though if we ever get a fully immune president we’re screwed. Previous presidents agreed with that and subjected themselves to oversight, and even in one case, a speeding ticket.

          • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)A
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            I was talking specifically the Supreme Court, as that would be the only court with more power than the President/King/Dictator. He would absolutely use all lower federal courts to bring the states in line, and prosecute anyone that threaten his power.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Interesting fact, there’s no Constitutional cap to the size of SCOTUS. If I were him I would find 10 people beholden to me financially and by blackmail. The court would then be 19 people.

    • cmbabul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      If it does come to that point I think we’ll have a double feature of insurgencies and Balkanization

      • Corigan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        In Russia you do, or at least you pretend that the people are getting a choice through voting.