elbucho @ elbucho @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

377

Joined

2 yr. ago

So just to be clear, here, your logic is that the people who wrote this amendment in the 1860s were being intentionally obtuse just to fuck with us? Is that really what you're arguing? Because, buddy... I've gotta tell you... if you think that's how people behave, you have no clue what people are like. And if you're just arguing that because you realize that your position is ridiculous but you feel entrenched in an argument you have to see through to the end, you deserve all of the childish insults I can hurl at you.

I mean, sure, if you're an alien who has never met a human person before.

So you're saying that their method of explicitly stating that they don't want "A" is to write that they want "B", "C", "D", "and others" rather than just writing: "We don't want A"? Sorry, but that's really fucking stupid.

Edit: We're both looking at the same thing. But where I see an oversight, you see an intentional omission. My question is... if they intended to omit something, wouldn't it have been better to write that that position is specifically excluded? It would certainly be less confusing, wouldn't it? If you were to write it right now, wouldn't you write that the president is specifically excluded from the above if that was your desire? Seems to argue pretty highly for oversight, doesn't it? Is it your contention that it was just the style at the time for people in the 1860s to be intentionally obtuse? Like Abe Simpson with the onion on his belt?

So then her ruling makes sense, because they fucked up the amendment when they passed it to not include the POTUS/VPOTUS and it should be amended.

I agree that it should be amended to specifically include the position of president and vice president. And any other offices they failed to enumerate.

You’re basically saying that it’s a dumb ruling and that she should rule outside the law as it’s written because the people who made it didn’t think it through all the way. The latter being quite presumptuous.

It's not asking her to rule outside the law. It's asking her to rule based on what the law says. Her ruling implies that the authors of the 14th amendment at one point said to themselves: "Should we write that we don't intend this amendment to apply to the president? Nahhh. Some judge at some point in the future is bound to read through our cryptic bullshit and figure out that we mean literally every other public office but this one."

If you're asking me to get into her head and figure out why she made possibly the dumbest judgment I have ever seen, well... I'm afraid I'm not capable of doing that. If you're asking me why the people who wrote the 14th amendment didn't specify the president in the list of job titles... my guess is that they never thought that a president would be a traitor. It was written to target the traitors in the Confederacy, after all.

Sorry, but you're misunderstanding her ruling. Her ruling has nothing to do with the office he's running for, it was entirely to do with the office he held. I posted this further down in the thread, but here's the relevant section from her ruling itself:

Here, after considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that “officers of the United States” did not include the President of the United States. While the Court agrees that there are persuasive arguments on both sides, the Court holds that the absence of the President from the list of positions to which the Amendment applies combined with the fact that Section Three specifies that the disqualifying oath is one to “support” the Constitution whereas the Presidential oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, it appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.

She is saying that because the president is not included in the list of offices, that it was specifically excluded by the people who wrote the 14th amendment. Therefore, he is not bound by the rules that would have applied if he were, say, a senator or representative. So if he were to run for any other office, senator, congressman, etc, it would be allowed because he never violated his oath. If he were a senator, he would have violated the oath with his actions on and around Jan. 6th, and so therefore he wouldn't be allowed to pursue office.

Yes, that was the second half of her stupid, stupid judgment.

Seems pretty inclusive to me, too. I'm right there with you. But the judge didn't ask either of us, or apparently anybody who can read for their opinion, so we got this bullshit instead.

Edit: BTW - this isn't just my flawed interpretation of the judge's decision. It's basically a summary of paragraph 313 of her ruling:

Here, after considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that “officers of the United States” did not include the President of the United States. While the Court agrees that there are persuasive arguments on both sides, the Court holds that the absence of the President from the list of positions to which the Amendment applies combined with the fact that Section Three specifies that the disqualifying oath is one to “support” the Constitution whereas the Presidential oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, it appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.

She, actually. And no, her interpretation was that the office of president not being listed in the opening sentence of that clause means that the "framers" specifically wanted to exclude it. Here's the sentence in question:

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.

The language says: "elector of President and Vice-President", but it does not explicitly specify "President" or "Vice President". Therefore, she ruled that though he is a traitor, he can't be barred from running for office again.

It's incredibly dumb.

I'd say "apt metaphor", but since you don't seem to understand why so many people in this thread are reacting negatively to this ruling, I'm not surprised you don't understand the metaphor either.

I'm guessing it's because drag queens are icky, or something.

I'm an art lover, but if someone shat in their hand and smeared it on a canvas, I wouldn't hang that fucking thing on my wall.

I think it's just possible that this might be the stupidest ruling I have ever seen. He's an insurrectionist, but apparently he's a special insurrectionist, and should be allowed to have another crack at the highest office in the country. What the expletive fuck?

Haha yeah. That certainly was a highlight of 2016. Even better was that one of the three was the department of education...

Remember when Donald Trump appointed the guy who said he wanted to abolish the Department of Energy to be the head of the Department of Energy? Good times.

I really want to hear more about muffin encryption.

The thing I love most about this article is this one throw-away little line right here:

He ... claims that all of his legal troubles amount to "election interference" as he campaigns in the 2024 presidential election.

It just illustrates who Trump is so well. First, he hears a term that he doesn't understand, like: "election interference". Like what he did when he incited his cult of morons to attack the capitol during January 6th to prevent Congress from certifying the election. Then, he takes that term that he doesn't understand and uses it improperly to insinuate that that's what's being done to him. This is either because he's too dumb to know what it means and too stubborn to look it up, or because he believes that about his cultists.

This is the exact same playbook he used for "puppet" during his debates with Hillary, "Fake news" when he was campaigning, "witch hunt" when he was being investigated for impeachable offenses, etc.

The man is a complete god damned moron, and yet somehow, he's managed to figure out that a significant number of Americans are even dumber than he is, and he has become their messiah. It's awe-inducing.

Absolutely incredible.

Reminds me of this gem:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ovrtzwXKxaE

I think if you're going to be annoyed by stupid people, you probably shouldn't make stupid people a core part of your business model. I'm not saying everyone who homeschools their kids is stupid. Just most of them. Like nearly all of them.