• Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Except justifying Biden as having committed insurrection is a hell of a lot harder than Trump, who was found to have committed insurrection as a matter of fact.

    It protects Biden, sure, but from an extremely remote possibility, instead of an imminent one.

    • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      In order to legally classify Biden as an insurrectionist, they’d have to come up with hare-brained legal gymnastics and then they’d need, like, a majority in the supreme court to rubber-stamp their…

      oh.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Eh, for what it’s worth, SCOTUS has said it’s Congress’s job to determine that, because the self-executing portion of the Constitution apparently needs an executor. 🙃

    • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      Since when have they ever needed to justify anything?
      They don’t justify it to anyone else or themselves, they just act.

      • GooseFinger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        That same logic suggests that Red states would kick Biden off the ballot if they’d like regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      They’ve been setting that up for weeks, though. They started calling the migrant crisis in the Southern border an “invasion”. You can bet that if the Court held up the Colorado ruling, we would have a ruling in short order in Texas (possibly AZ too) that Biden was ineligible for directly causing an invasion. No matter how incorrect that take is.