479
Absolutely spineless administration
There are many forms of accountability.
Can't Biden remove the power to pardon without, say, 3/4th of Congress or something..that would be funny.
Droll, baby, droll!
They will never get him.
Death is the only thing that he will never be able to escape.
The day his bloated, twisted body can take no more will be a good day indeed.
I really need to take up tapdancing classes for when the day comes
Merrick Garland wasted more than a year. That worthless waste of oxygen should be remembered as the reason we lost even the pretense of a democracy.
I never understood why Biden picked him. Obama only nominated him for SCOTUS because he thought he could get him past the GOP held senate due to his moderate beliefs (in the pejorative conservative sense).
Because Biden is not and will never be a progressive.
"Nothing will fundamentally change"
Biden's legacy will be forever known as the man who enabled Trump to take over and ruin the "democracy" that Biden said he would save. Biden is America's Hindenburg, acting like it was the moral and noble duty to appoint someone so corrupt and evil that if they had a devil whispering on their shoulder, that devil is the lesser evil.
Every single day Trump escaped jail is a day Biden should have fast tracked it, making sure his "one term" was going to actually going to do what he aimed to do, attempt to solve the crisis of Trump.
And now Biden will probably retire and/or flee the country as the people who voted for him and Harris are going to be sent to concentration camps. The Democrats will stick around as long as Trump wants them to, and when Trump wants to get rid of them, the higher ups will probably evade arresting, and the voters won't be able to.
Nothing else pisses me off more. I voted for Biden to help take care of Trump. I hated supporting a racist old bastard, but I did it because I wanted the orange fucker gone and behind bars where he rotted away. And then he even failed at that.
I hate Trump, but my vitriol is towards people who can do better but refuse to do anything but sit by and watch the show. Refusing to chose a side as one side openly starts planning a governmental hostage situation to remove the rights of anyone but who is willing to lick Trump's ass clean is choosing a side, and it's not a good one.
God damn.
Yeah I agree. Biden was the only person who could enable a second Trump presidency.
Now, now, we just saw that's not true. Harris could too.
Holy shit, you're right. I've been wondering if/when we'd get a Hindenburg equivalent, but you nailed it. We already have one.
load more comments
(7 replies)
No shit, we should have prosecuted and jailed him the second that shit happened. Instead, we spent the entire time debating whether a president can be prosecuted, and then concluded, nah bro, presidents can't be prosecuted, lol.
and then Biden proved how weak he is by not immediately using that free pass to solve the problem.
They let Hitler go free too (though he did do jail time). That turned out well.
the road to fascism is paved by the judiciary
load more comments
(9 replies)
This is on Brandon. Fucking idiot thought decorum or whatever the fuck was so goddamn important. He is a failure of historic proportion.
"They go low, we go high"
But think of how NOBLY the Dems have lost the Republic! Completely polite and norm-abiding as what remains of our democracy is torn to shreds and pissed on!
load more comments
(13 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
It's not too late. The 14th amendment Section 3 specifically prohibits an insurrectionist from holding public office unless a special Congressional vote is held and passes with a 2/3rds majority.
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.
All US citizens should call their representatives and demand they uphold their sworn Constitutional duty to refuse the certification of Donald Trump's victory as he is disqualified from holding office.
This is not speculation. Donald Trump was successfully impeached for inciting insurrection. The US is in the middle of a Constitutional crisis which Congress must resolve.
Finding your reps is easy. Go here:
https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member
Either let the site use your location or enter your home address. It'll pull all the info you need in one click.
With great sadness I'll remind you that a majority of voters elected Trump.
At this point it just doesn't really matter what the rules are. It hasn't mattered before now. It certainly isn't going to matter just a few weeks after the citizens expressed their desire that he be president.
I take issue with your assertion that the document on which all other US law depends and from which all US public offices are granted their authority does not matter. It must. We ought to insist it does. Especially while it is being violated.
Sadly, it doesn't matter.
I'm grieving right along with you.
My point is, when someone is democratically elected in a free and fair election then the rules don't really matter because they're supposed to be derived from the will of the people anyway.
Using the law to undermine a democratic process is not the way.
You've fundamentally misunderstood this. Upholding Constitutional law cannot undermine the democratic process which it establishes.
If I win a game by breaking its rules I am de-facto disqualified from that victory. Yes, all law is written by people, can be unmade by people, and is only in effect so long as we collectively agree to enforce it, however; if the law is not unmade and if we collectively sigh in apathy at its violation then we are no longer playing the game the rules have defined.
This is the immense danger of the current Constitutional crisis. If there is no enforcement of the rules set forth in a government's founding document then it can no longer be recognized as the body which that document defines.
I'm not debating the law and how it's supposed to work.
I'm agreeing that the law is only relevant if you collectively agree to enforce it.
Sadly, in a recent election polling the entire nation, Americans collectively agreed to disregard the law in this instance.
This is not speculation. Donald Trump was successfully impeached for inciting insurrection.
Did you stop reading your link at the title? Literally the third sentence:
On February 13, 2021, the Senate voted to acquit Trump on the article of impeachment.
If you want to dig into the arguments about what is and isn't legally insurrection and if the 14th Amendment is self executing or not, that is an interesting discussion. But, don't lead with a "pants on head" stupid argument that the House passed Articles of Impeachment, for which the Senate acquitted him, as evidence that the 14th Amendment applies. Just fucking no.
Nope. I read it. The language of the 14th doesn't require an impeachment or other formal conviction to apply. The fact that Trump was successfully impeached for inciting an insurrection is enough. The Senate's failure to execute its duty does not erase reality.
At this time, on this topic, I am not concerned with what makes for interesting conservation. I am interested in bringing attention to the ongoing Constitutional crisis of Trump's tentative second term.
The fact that Trump was successfully impeached for inciting an insurrection is enough. The Senate’s failure to execute its duty does not erase reality.
Do you actually understand how impeachment works? The House passing articles of impeachment means very little. For a legal equivalent, it's like the grand jury agreeing to indict. Should we be punishing criminals just because charges were brought against them, even if they were acquitted? Of course not. While the House has the Power to Impeach:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. -US Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6
The reality of the situation is that the Impeachment of Trump isn't a factor in the 14th Amendment barring him. Had the Senate convicted, it would have been a cut and dried situation, but that didn't happen. Were Trump convicted for insurrection for his actions on January 6th, it would again be an easy situation. The reason there is such an interesting conversation, and not much else, around the 14th Amendment and Trump is that the legal situation isn't clear. Lots of folks have said that Trump's actions were an insurrection, but he hasn't actually been convicted of it. Congress could probably bar him from holding office, but that hasn't happened.
I'd also point out how insane it would be for the House's Power to Impeach to become the de facto bar for executing the 14th Amendment's bar on holding office. This requires a simple majority in the House. Really think that one through. You want the House to be able to bar any person from holding Federal Office, based on a simple majority vote? The level of chaos that would create would be insane.
I do. Thanks. You're still focused on the wrong thing here.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not require any specific test which defines "insurrection". The impeachment is a useful anchor for establishing an agreement that an insurrection did occur and that Trump was, at the very least, an active participant in that insurrection.
The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (crsreports.congress.gov) provides an well crafted and neutral review of this. Its closing sentence is particularly relevant to our back and forth:
Congress has previously viewed Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment as establishing an enumerated constitutional qualification for holding office and, consequently, a grounds for possible exclusion.
Republican strategy has long revolved around the targeted devolution of norms. They hide in the cracks between definitions which assume good faith participation in the labor of mutually consensual governance and shield themselves in perpetual faux-victimhood. If Congress does not pursue the execution of Section 3 it is nothing less than an abdication of their duty to their Oath of Office.
Your last paragraph is a result of misunderstandings and assumptions on your part.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not require any specific test which defines “insurrection”.
Ya, the real problem is that it doesn't. As specifically stated by the CRS:
Determining who has engaged in either of the two disqualifying activities—that is, engaging in insurrection or rebellion or giving aid or comfort to an enemy—is likely to be a difficult task given the scarcity of precedents and lack of clear definitions
And that difficulty is why that whole document exists, there isn't clear legal guidance. And the historic precedents on it are a mess. Yes, either house of Congress has the power to refuse to seat a member of their respective house and have used the 14th Amendment as a reason in the past. Moreover, Congress could pass a law which sets out a legal framework; but, that's not really happened either. The whole reason that this is even a discussion is that lack of clarity.
Republican strategy has long revolved around the targeted devolution of norms. They hide in the cracks between definitions which assume good faith participation in the labor of mutually consensual governance and shield themselves in perpetual faux-victimhood. If Congress does not pursue the execution of Section 3 it is nothing less than an abdication of their duty to their Oath of Office.
Arguably, Congress did try to do something, the House Impeached Trump. The Senate dropped the ball. And the American people then buried that ball far enough to interfere with Satan's daily activities by re-electiong Trump. It's a bad situation, but also not one we're going to solve by misrepresenting the law. Especially by handing The House the sole power to determine what Presidential Candidates have engaged in insurrection by a simple majority vote (the requirement to impeach). If you want to bring up "devolution of norms", that sort of power is going to take the cake. Anytime we have a split government, we're going to see impeachment and barring from office on the flimsiest of excuses. What we need isn't half-baked ideas but an actual, well considered framework.
Your last paragraph is a result of misunderstandings and assumptions on your part.
I think it's down to you moving the goalposts. You specifically stated:
The language of the 14th doesn’t require an impeachment or other formal conviction to apply. The fact that Trump was successfully impeached for inciting an insurrection is enough. The Senate’s failure to execute its duty does not erase reality.
You are arguing that the House Impeaching is enough to trigger Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Which is what I'm calling ridiculous. Trump being convicted by the Senate would have clearly barred him from holding office again. The reality is that he was acquitted. That's the part which is actually important.
He was impeached but not convicted by the feckless, obsequious Senate. And he wasn't convicted by the courts. So this won't happen, unfortunately
Neither of those facts preclude the application of the 14th. The barrier is whether or not someone holding public office, having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, breaks that oath via insurrection against the same. It does not matter that Trump was not punished. The acquittal does not erase the reality of the past: it is a dismissal of immediate consequences. Nothing more.
The fact that Congress acknowledged the reality of January 6th is more than enough for the 14th to apply.
AND WHO FUCKING APPOINTED MERRICK GARLAND?
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
479 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19287 readers
1832 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS