Comments by "Warren Cash" (@mandowarrior123) on "‘That’s A Pretty Daunting Consequence’: John Roberts Confronts Lawyer In Trump Disqualification Case" video.

  1. Big institutions generally tend to be the opposite of their namesake. Democrats aren't big fans of democracy. Department of defense is quite aggressive overseas, so on. It happens across the world. Even charities. Maybe 'barely held together quarrelling states of america' would've been a better name.
    2
  2. He was accused in the media of insurrection but the allegation in law is he aided or conspired with insurrectionists which is also covered, which essentially includes non criminal acts. Media aren't covering the truth of the claims, and yes they are rather ridiculous.
    1
  3. The breach was in process during his speech as I understand it. The claim was he aided insurrectionists in some manner in private not connected to the speech or crowd.
    1
  4. You can define congress' armed opposition of the commander in chiefs loyal supporters as insurrection if you want to. You really do not want them to define insurrection. In hindsight it was a poor choice of words, and too vague to be realistically enforceable against anyone who isn't openly self declared an insurrectionist. How about you give it a try and we'll pick your definition apart. Or even adopt it.
    1
  5. Its my understanding most states claimed he aided insurrectionists not that he was one himself. He'd have to be charged for that to fly, ludicrous to argue it.
    1
  6. ​ @gregorymirsky8707  congress wouldn't include any individual state, would it?
    1
  7. Unusual for sure.
    1
  8. That isn't quite true. I get where you are coming from, but the consequences of their rulings are also tightly bound by law. Through only defining the law it is very easy for them to define themselves as kingmakers- decide every presidency. Consequence is vital to assessing and weighing rights in general. Otherwise it is a meaningless partisan arbitration. It is not difficult to word a definition of insurrection that includes Trump's political opponents but not him for example. You could define it as 'armed resistance to the loyal supporters of the incumbent commander in chief and lack of subordination to his authority' as insurrection and convict all of the sitting congress. And it would be a 'fair' definition of insurrection, the consequence would shift power dramatically and invalidate many parts of the constitution. Does that make sense now why consequences not merely inventing definition matters to the supreme court?
    1