▲ 647 ▼ It isn’t ‘anti-democratic’ to bar Trump from office. It’s needed to protect democracy | Steven Greenhouse (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by CantaloupeLifestyle@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 84 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] osarusan@kbin.social 27 points 2 years ago (3 children) It's literally following the law. permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) If it lets an insurrectionist like Trump on the ballot, the supreme court will be putting out a welcome mat to autocracy And they will be among the first up against the wall if that day comes, you can bet on it. I wonder if they have the slightest shred of self-preservation. If they are more afraid of maga now and not what maga will become, then their self-preservation instinct is badly flawed. We'll see. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] osarusan@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think the right-leaning justices know pretty well that their positions are safe. They're already benefiting immensely from corruption. When democracy dies and they have no obligation to the law, they'll do whatever it takes to enrich themselves further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] rifugee@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago After all, someone has to rubber stamp the actions of the autocrat. permalink fedilink source parent [–] HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago Well, when democracy dies they're not needed at all. Not being necessary is a dangerous position to be in. People who aren't necessary are easily eliminated. And of course, there's no incentive to pay off people who aren't necessary. I say if they have an ounce of self-reflection, they would know this is true and it would make them nervous. But you're right, they probably don't. permalink fedilink source parent [–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago Roberts doesn't. His response to the American people who were angry about the Dobbs abortion decision was that they should shut up and listen to the court's authority. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mamertine@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's in the constitution! That sacred document that was divinely inspired. Granted it's an amendment so it wasn't part of Jefferson's initial creation, but it's been in there for 150 years. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago How dare you suggest the Constitution was written by a person! It was written by God himself! permalink fedilink source parent [–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah but the vibe of it all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] osarusan@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago That's a terrible argument against it. If there's a bad vibe to eliminating a candidate for following laws that were explicitly written down 150 years ago to stop such a candidate, then what kind of vibe does it give off if we flat out ignore that same law? If we allow ourselves to be swayed by the idea that taking away a very specific privilege from a person gives off a bad vibe, then we'd be undermining our entire justice system and the very concept of law itself. The law is unambiguous, and we must follow it. If we don't, then the rule of law truly has no meaning. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) If it lets an insurrectionist like Trump on the ballot, the supreme court will be putting out a welcome mat to autocracy And they will be among the first up against the wall if that day comes, you can bet on it. I wonder if they have the slightest shred of self-preservation. If they are more afraid of maga now and not what maga will become, then their self-preservation instinct is badly flawed. We'll see. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] osarusan@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think the right-leaning justices know pretty well that their positions are safe. They're already benefiting immensely from corruption. When democracy dies and they have no obligation to the law, they'll do whatever it takes to enrich themselves further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] rifugee@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago After all, someone has to rubber stamp the actions of the autocrat. permalink fedilink source parent [–] HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago Well, when democracy dies they're not needed at all. Not being necessary is a dangerous position to be in. People who aren't necessary are easily eliminated. And of course, there's no incentive to pay off people who aren't necessary. I say if they have an ounce of self-reflection, they would know this is true and it would make them nervous. But you're right, they probably don't. permalink fedilink source parent [–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago Roberts doesn't. His response to the American people who were angry about the Dobbs abortion decision was that they should shut up and listen to the court's authority. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] osarusan@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think the right-leaning justices know pretty well that their positions are safe. They're already benefiting immensely from corruption. When democracy dies and they have no obligation to the law, they'll do whatever it takes to enrich themselves further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] rifugee@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago After all, someone has to rubber stamp the actions of the autocrat. permalink fedilink source parent [–] HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago Well, when democracy dies they're not needed at all. Not being necessary is a dangerous position to be in. People who aren't necessary are easily eliminated. And of course, there's no incentive to pay off people who aren't necessary. I say if they have an ounce of self-reflection, they would know this is true and it would make them nervous. But you're right, they probably don't. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rifugee@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago After all, someone has to rubber stamp the actions of the autocrat. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago Well, when democracy dies they're not needed at all. Not being necessary is a dangerous position to be in. People who aren't necessary are easily eliminated. And of course, there's no incentive to pay off people who aren't necessary. I say if they have an ounce of self-reflection, they would know this is true and it would make them nervous. But you're right, they probably don't. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago Roberts doesn't. His response to the American people who were angry about the Dobbs abortion decision was that they should shut up and listen to the court's authority. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mamertine@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's in the constitution! That sacred document that was divinely inspired. Granted it's an amendment so it wasn't part of Jefferson's initial creation, but it's been in there for 150 years. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago How dare you suggest the Constitution was written by a person! It was written by God himself! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago How dare you suggest the Constitution was written by a person! It was written by God himself! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah but the vibe of it all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] osarusan@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago That's a terrible argument against it. If there's a bad vibe to eliminating a candidate for following laws that were explicitly written down 150 years ago to stop such a candidate, then what kind of vibe does it give off if we flat out ignore that same law? If we allow ourselves to be swayed by the idea that taking away a very specific privilege from a person gives off a bad vibe, then we'd be undermining our entire justice system and the very concept of law itself. The law is unambiguous, and we must follow it. If we don't, then the rule of law truly has no meaning. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] osarusan@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago That's a terrible argument against it. If there's a bad vibe to eliminating a candidate for following laws that were explicitly written down 150 years ago to stop such a candidate, then what kind of vibe does it give off if we flat out ignore that same law? If we allow ourselves to be swayed by the idea that taking away a very specific privilege from a person gives off a bad vibe, then we'd be undermining our entire justice system and the very concept of law itself. The law is unambiguous, and we must follow it. If we don't, then the rule of law truly has no meaning. permalink fedilink source parent