Should Scalia's seat be vacated?

[Keith&Co.]

Willfully harming a nation's government is an act of war on that government.

You're exaggerating.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Willfully harming a nation's government is an act of war on that government.

You're exaggerating.

...and confusing unconstitutional for treason.

 

[KeepTalking]

The above bears repeating, given that unter ignored it, snipped it, and blew right past it in his zeal to label Keith as a right-wing supporter of treason.

You should respond to what Keith said above, unter, as that is a big part of his argument. Arguing the way unter is currently arguing is the road to totalitarianism.

Protest of what?

Anything, as long as that protest disrupts the normal function of the government by occupying or blocking access to a government building. Your reasoning would lead us to conclude that any protest that does that would be treason.

The Senate IS the government.

The Senate is part of the government, one half of the legislative branch, which is itself one third of the government. I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic of discussion, though.

It has a duty to fulfill.

Willfully shirking that duty is not protest.

It is treason. An act of war on another branch. Actually two.

No, it is not. Words have meaning. Treason is defined in the constitution, and this does not meet that definition.

A clear violation of the separation of powers. These duties are not optional.

Clear violation of the separation of powers? Not likely. Had the Senate installed a Justice on the Supreme Court without that Justice having been nominated by the POTUS, that would be a clear violation of the separation of power. That would still not result in a charge of treason, as treason is not defined that way in the Constitution.

You are saying WE work for the Senate and it does not work for us.

I have never said any such thing, not even close. That is why you were unable to quote me as saying that, or anything close to that.

 

[untermensche]

Willfully harming a nation's government is an act of war on that government.

You're exaggerating.

You have crazy double standards.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A clear violation of the separation of powers. These duties are not optional.

Clear violation of the separation of powers? Not likely. Had the Senate installed a Justice on the Supreme Court without that Justice having been nominated by the POTUS, that would be a clear violation of the separation of power. That would still not result in a charge of treason, as treason is not defined that way in the Constitution.

It's more of a Democratic issue than separation of powers. The Executive Branch nominates the Justice. The Legislative Branch approves it. The Legislative Branch refused to even deal with it, in an attempt to get a different party in power of the Executive Branch to fill the seat. This pretty much gave the electorate the finger as it didn't allow for any hearings.

What is odd is that they didn't even bother to vote the guy down.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You're exaggerating.

You have crazy double standards.

No, your problem is that I have a firm standard on why the founding fathers were concerned about the term 'treason.'

Your efforts to make it into something that it isn't would ultimately hamper any efforts to fight REAL treason by making the term useless.
So, really, that would hamper our ability to defend against treason....

 

[Elixir]

What is odd is that they didn't even bother to vote the guy down.

Just a typical calculation - they had no reason to vote him down, and figured that voting him down for no reason would look worse than simply not voting.

 

[untermensche]

Protest of what?

Anything, as long as that protest disrupts the normal function of the government by occupying or blocking access to a government building. Your reasoning would lead us to conclude that any protest that does that would be treason.

I am asking what is the Senate willfully not doing it's duty a protest of?

The Senate is allowed to not confirm a presidential nominee.

But protest one?

What does that mean?

The Senate is part of the government, one half of the legislative branch, which is itself one third of the government. I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic of discussion, though.

For those able to follow I am asking what the Senate is protesting? It is the government, another way of saying it is a part of it.

Is it protesting the will of the American people expressed in the presidency?

Again if the Senate is allowed to protest the will of the electorate then that is saying it does not work for the people.

If the Senate is not working for the people and disrupting another branch it is committing treason.

 

[untermensche]

You have crazy double standards.

No, your problem is that I have a firm standard on why the founding fathers were concerned about the term 'treason.'

Your efforts to make it into something that it isn't would ultimately hamper any efforts to fight REAL treason by making the term useless.
So, really, that would hamper our ability to defend against treason....

If Al Qaeda attacked the Supreme Court you would understand.

When the Senate attacks both the Supreme Court and the will of the people you have problems.

And to compensate you create a double standard.

My standards are the same for Al Qaeda as they are for the Republicans.

 

[KeepTalking]

Anything, as long as that protest disrupts the normal function of the government by occupying or blocking access to a government building. Your reasoning would lead us to conclude that any protest that does that would be treason.

I am asking what is the Senate willfully not doing it's duty a protest of?

The Senate is allowed to not confirm a presidential nominee.

But protest one?

What does that mean?

The Senate is part of the government, one half of the legislative branch, which is itself one third of the government. I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic of discussion, though.

For those able to follow I am asking what the Senate is protesting? It is the government, another way of saying it is a part of it.

Is it protesting the will of the American people expressed in the presidency?

Again if the Senate is allowed to protest the will of the electorate then that is saying it does not work for the people.

If the Senate is not working for the people and disrupting another branch it is committing treason.

No one is saying that the Senate was protesting anything. That certainly was not my point. The point Keith was making, and the point to which I subscribe, is that when you say that anything that disrupts the normal function of the government is treason, then you are also saying that anyone who engages in a protest utilizing civil disobedience that serves to disrupt the government (i.e. occupying, or blocking access to, a government building) is committing treason. That is an argument that Trump would be glad to embrace, so that he could use it to silence protests that cause gridlock in DC, and arrest those protesters for treason. That is very much the road to totalitarianism.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, your problem is that I have a firm standard on why the founding fathers were concerned about the term 'treason.'

Your efforts to make it into something that it isn't would ultimately hamper any efforts to fight REAL treason by making the term useless.
So, really, that would hamper our ability to defend against treason....

If Al Qaeda attacked the Supreme Court you would understand.

When the Senate attacks both the Supreme Court and the will of the people you have problems.

And to compensate you create a double standard.

My standards are the same for Al Qaeda as they are for the Republicans.

If any US citizen physically attacked the Supreme Court, that would be treason. If any foreign government physically attacked the Supreme Court that would be an act of war. The US Senate refusing to bring a Supreme Court nomination up for vote is neither of these things. Do you get it yet?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If Al Qaeda attacked the Supreme Court you would understand.

When the Senate attacks both the Supreme Court and the will of the people you have problems.

And to compensate you create a double standard.

My standards are the same for Al Qaeda as they are for the Republicans.

If any US citizen physically attacked the Supreme Court, that would be treason. If any foreign government physically attacked the Supreme Court that would be an act of war. The US Senate refusing to bring a Supreme Court nomination up for vote is neither of these things. Do you get it yet?

Could be time to hang it up on this lost cause.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If Al Qaeda attacked the Supreme Court you would understand.

An act of terrorism, not treason.

When the Senate attacks both the Supreme Court and the will of the people you have problems.

Problems, yes.
Treason, no.

And to compensate you create a double standard.

No, you're just unable to discriminate between the terms.

My standards are the same for Al Qaeda as they are for the Republicans.

Which is why you don't have an argument., just emotional histrionics.

 

[Elixir]

If any US citizen physically attacked the Supreme Court, that would be treason. If any foreign government physically attacked the Supreme Court that would be an act of war. The US Senate refusing to bring a Supreme Court nomination up for vote is neither of these things. Do you get it yet?

Could be time to hang it up on this lost cause.

Maybe one last desperate example - Let's say Al Qaeda attacked the supreme court in a newspaper article. Treason?

 

[untermensche]

An act of terrorism, not treason.

What is terrorism carried out by the Senate against the Supreme Court?

It is like trying to teach a cow to juggle.

And of course an act of terrorism is also an act of war.

 

[untermensche]

If Al Qaeda attacked the Supreme Court you would understand.

When the Senate attacks both the Supreme Court and the will of the people you have problems.

And to compensate you create a double standard.

My standards are the same for Al Qaeda as they are for the Republicans.

If any US citizen physically attacked the Supreme Court, that would be treason. If any foreign government physically attacked the Supreme Court that would be an act of war. The US Senate refusing to bring a Supreme Court nomination up for vote is neither of these things. Do you get it yet?

What exactly makes it some "non-physical" attack?

It is a real attack. A deliberate attack. If you deliberately skew the working of some body you have attacked it. Physically not spiritually.

A deliberate dereliction of duty. In the military it is called mutiny. In government, treason.

 

[Elixir]

An act of terrorism, not treason.

What is terrorism carried out by the Senate against the Supreme Court?

It is like trying to teach a cow to juggle.

And of course an act of terrorism is also an act of war.

So... SCOTUS needs to call in an air strike against the Senate. Simple and effective, and everyone lives happily ever after.

 

[KeepTalking]

An act of terrorism, not treason.

What is terrorism carried out by the Senate against the Supreme Court?

Refusing to call a vote is not terrorism any more than it is treason. If all Al Qaeda was doing was refusing to hold votes, we wouldn't really have a beef with them.

And of course an act of terrorism is also an act of war.

No, it isn't. Eric Rudolph committed several acts of terrorism against the US, which nation(s) would we need to declare war on to defend ourselves against those acts of terrorism?

 

[KeepTalking]

If any US citizen physically attacked the Supreme Court, that would be treason. If any foreign government physically attacked the Supreme Court that would be an act of war. The US Senate refusing to bring a Supreme Court nomination up for vote is neither of these things. Do you get it yet?

What exactly makes it some "non-physical" attack?

The fact that there was no physical component to the "attack".

It is a real attack. A deliberate attack. If you deliberately skew the working of some body you have attacked it. Physically not spiritually.

So, building on the example provided by Elixir. Would a Senator writing a newspaper opinion attacking the SCOTUS be an act of treason? If not, you are simply torturing the English language to provide an outcome that is favorable to your argument.

A deliberate dereliction of duty. In the military it is called mutiny.

The Senate is not a military organization, nor should it function as one.

In government, treason.

In a totalitarian government, quite possibly. In the Government of the United States of American, we define treason in our founding document, the Constitution, and treason is not defined that way in the Constitution.

 

[untermensche]

What is terrorism carried out by the Senate against the Supreme Court?

Refusing to call a vote is not terrorism any more than it is treason. If all Al Qaeda was doing was refusing to hold votes, we wouldn't really have a beef with them.

Deliberately harming another branch IS terrorism.

They are allowed to harm themselves and harm their own function, but not another branch.

No, it isn't. Eric Rudolph committed several acts of terrorism against the US, which nation(s) would we need to declare war on to defend ourselves against those acts of terrorism?

Your inanity has no limit.

Just because there is an act of war does not mean there is a nation to attack. From what crevice did that nonsense dribble from?

You have extremely limited definitions. Definitions a few hundred years out of date.

The human mind has advanced since 1789.