Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wait a second, are you opposing Biden's support of Israel? Are you opposing his going after the terrorists in the Red Sea? You are making even less sense than normal, and that is quite the accomplishment.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
Laniakea
Not of this world
On the contrary, I support those things. But that doesn't mean I will be voting for him. However, he is alienating many of his own supporters by doing those things, and now Democrats have more options then an old man who can barely stay awake or make it up a flight of stairs. That will cost him the election, if he can even get through this last year of his term in office.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, there is a range of support for Israel from the Democrats. Some are strong supporters,, some are not. Biden has always been a strong supporter of Israel. He has not changed. He was also always an opponent to Terrorism. Remember it was Obama who authorized the killing of the leader of Osama bin Laden. Not all Democrats are left winged loons. Unfortunately today too many Republicans are fascist freaks. The Republican party needs to move back towards the center.
Laniakea
Not of this world
And Putin never did invade Ukraine under Trump.
I guess "love" goes a lot further than falling down stairs, falling asleep, and losing track of the secretary of defense.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You just proved my point, so thanks!
No, I suspect that they might focus on the argument that, somehow, the President is not "an officer of the United States."
Yet, when I read Aticle 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, I find these words, that every President must say before the Chief Justice before taking office: 'Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:- “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I rather think that John Roberts, who administered that oath, will have a hard time arguing that the guy who promised to "faithfully execute the Office of the President" is not, somehow, an "officer."
Make the argument complicated enuf, find
some detail in the language to interpret in
way to justify it, & select the most useful
constitutional philosophy (originalism, strict
constructionism, Christian Imperialism)
& they can reach any desired decision.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Actually the insurrection is much more than just January 6. The DC criminal case covers much more and did not use the term "insurrection" since insurrection is not a criminal term. It is a general concept and shows one of the differences between the Constitution and criminal law. The Constitution is written in the language of the people. It is not specific which is why sometimes it has to be interpreted by judges. Criminal law has to be very specific, so one does not get charged with "insurrection" as a criminal matter, one gets charged for all of the acts leading to it, such as:
one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States
one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding
one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding
one count of conspiracy against rights
Is sophistry a required course in U.S. legal education?
It's covered in Trickery 101.
Ah! Since cutting people is a crime, all surgeons are criminals (mens rea being basically impossible to prove).
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
They probably have a different term for it at law school. But a lawyer does have to do his best for a client, no matter what he thinks of the matter. So I would say yes.
The interesting thing here is this: in court, there is this notional thing called a "bar." On one side, you have the plaintiffs, defendants, lawyers and others all battling their way through trial using whatever arguments they can find to had -- and that's the side you mention.
But on the other side of the bar, (for example that row of plush leather seats where nine Justices of SCOTUS sit) are presumed to be disinterested, sobre minds trying to sort their way through all the sophistry, lies, obfuscation, misdirection -- in an attempt to arrive at something close to the truth.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Unfortunately . . . well all I can say is have you checked out our Supreme Court lately? They are not supposed to be political body but they seem to have become one.
By the careful design of the Republican party. They have been working at this for years.
Repeating lies doesn't make them true.
It's also a religious
body (2/3 Catholic).
Do you believe what Trump claims about massive election fraud? Or do you accept that Biden won in 2020?
☆Dreamwind☆
Active Member
I don't have high hopes for this, given how horrendous and backwards thinking they've been over the last five years. While some of them have their lips permanently glued to trumps wrinkly old butt.