Should Scalia's seat be vacated?

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

The Republicans impeded Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court. That to you is an "attack". So if people form a road block to stop a highway... impeding traffic... is that also an "attack"?

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

Mutiny for Government would be a coup d'etat, not impeding a SCOTUS nominee. If an officer didn't follow an order, that would be a violation (whatever Keith was repeatedly charged with ), not mutiny.

 

[Keith&Co.]

An act of terrorism, not treason.

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

Except it's not terrorism, either.
Malfeasance, maybe? Incompetence?

It is like trying to teach a cow to juggle.

Well, you're the one insisting the cow must juggle. Good luck with that.

 

[Elixir]

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.

But they believed they were HELPING the other branch... YMMV, but there is no clear intent to harm.

The human mind has advanced since 1789.

Evidence, please.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If an officer didn't follow an order, that would be a violation (whatever Keith was repeatedly charged with ), not mutiny.

I was never an officer.
But, yeah, there are many options in the UCMJ for charging someone before we rise to the level of mutiny.

What I find fascinating is the suggestion that treason is when it jumps branches... So if the Senate were to somehow harm the House of Representatives, that's not treason, because unter thinks it's fine if they harm their own branch... It's an interesting legal view.

Totally batshit, but interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

So if people form a road block to stop a highway... impeding traffic... is that also an "attack"? .

And that's actually a physical attack, too! Bonus!

 

[untermensche]

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

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

The entire attack is physical. It requires physically refusing to do a Constitutional duty.

And the harm is real. The harm is physical.

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.

They are not giving an opinion. This is not speech. It is an action. Deliberately refusing to act is an action in itself.

And it is an action with real, not imaginary, consequences.

This example of a newspaper has no connection to what happened.

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

Nobody said that. It was an analogy. The Senate has Constitutional duties. When the Supreme Court is disrupted by a loss of a member it is the duty of the Senate to rectify that situation. This is not an option.

To deliberately harm another branch and refuse to do your Constitutional duty is about the worst thing the Senate can do.

If it is not treason then some more serious crime is applicable.

...treason is not defined that way in the Constitution.

Wrong, treason is defined as an act of war.

Exactly as this should be looked at.

 

[untermensche]

Deliberately harming another branch IS terrorism.

But they believed they were HELPING the other branch... YMMV, but there is no clear intent to harm.

Intentions don't mean shit.

All that matters is clear consequences.

The human mind has advanced since 1789.

Evidence, please.

Slavery abolished, women given equal rights, the outlawing of child labor.

 

[Elixir]

To deliberately harm another branch and refuse to do your Constitutional duty is about the worst thing the Senate can do.

Once again -

But they believed they were HELPING the other branch... YMMV, but there is no clear intent to harm.

The human mind has advanced since 1789.

Evidence, please.

Intentions don't mean shit.

Then why do you keep using the word "deliberately"?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

Dereliction of duty is called dereliction of duty. It's a separate article from mutiny/sedition, largely based on the intent and the scope of the disobedience.

Did your copy of the UCMJ get wet, and the ink run together?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Intentions don't mean shit.

Ah. That explains your confusion on the military 'mutiny' thing. You missed the 'with the intent' part of the article. Or forgot it.

So is this a reading comprehension problem or one of memory retention?

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

No, terrorism is deliberately instilling terror in a civilian population through acts of violence, or threatening acts of violence.

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.

That's rich coming from you.

Pot. Kettle. Black

Just because there is an act of war does not mean there is a nation to attack.

Nations engaging in armed conflict is the most common definition of 'war'. Certainly when the term 'act of war' is used, it is referring to conflicts between nations. 'War' is also a card game, but I did not think that you were using that definition for the word.

From what crevice did that nonsense dribble from?

A dictionary. Perhaps you could acquaint yourself with one, it would save us all a lot of typing.

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

The human mind has advanced since 1789.

Considering that the portion of the Constitution that contains that definition has not been amended, nor rescinded, that is the definition we will need to use when talking about the US Government and it's operations.

 

[KeepTalking]

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

The entire attack is physical. It requires physically refusing to do a Constitutional duty.

Incorrect. Physically refusing to do something is never considered an attack, it is simple resistance. A physical attack requires violence.

And the harm is real. The harm is physical.

You are once again incorrect. An empty chair does not physically harm any person or thing, even the chair. Filling that chair with a person, however, can cause harm to it, even thought it is intended to hold a person. See, I can be pedantic as well.

This example of a newspaper has no connection to what happened.

Neither do your accusations of treason and/or war.

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

Nobody said that. It was an analogy.

Since the principles inherent in that analogy are not applicable to this situation, then it was not an apt analogy.

The Senate has Constitutional duties. When the Supreme Court is disrupted by a loss of a member it is the duty of the Senate to rectify that situation. This is not an option.

No, that would be a violation of the separation of powers, as that is the duty of the president. The President could actually have out-maneuvered the Senate by making a recess appointment, or by having his VP call the Senate to session after the Senators from the previous Congress were released from their duties, but before the new members of Congress were sworn in.

To deliberately harm another branch and refuse to do your Constitutional duty is about the worst thing the Senate can do.

That may be so, but it does not mean that it is treason, or a declaration of war.

If it is not treason then some more serious crime is applicable.

No. There was no crime committed. Refusing to do your job is not a crime. It is a reason to fire someone, but not a reason to imprison them. We will have the option to fire these people when they next come up for election.

...treason is not defined that way in the Constitution.

Wrong, treason is defined as an act of war.

Exactly as this should be looked at.

This was not an act of war, not in any manner whatsoever, not even in relation to the card game 'War'.

 

[Elixir]

The President could actually have out-maneuvered the Senate by making a recess appointment, or by having his VP call the Senate to session after the Senators from the previous Congress were released from their duties, but before the new members of Congress were sworn in.

Great point. I guess Uber would want Obama tried for treason for NOT intervening. His failure to act was intentional and harmful - definitely a treasonous terrorist non-act, right? Maybe he could share a cell with Mitch.

 

[untermensche]

The entire attack is physical. It requires physically refusing to do a Constitutional duty.

Incorrect. Physically refusing to do something is never considered an attack, it is simple resistance. A physical attack requires violence.

The fact that it is an attack is indisputable.

The only question is whether it is a physical or perhaps a spiritual attack.

Since they did not pray but physically refused to do something it is physical.

A physical attack.

You are once again incorrect. An empty chair does not physically harm any person or thing, even the chair.

It is the lack of the amount of human input prescribed by law.

It is the absence of a complete human mind from the Court.

That is harm. Physical, not spiritual harm.

No, that would be a violation of the separation of powers, as that is the duty of the president.

The president did his duty to the Court.

The Senate refused. It simply refused to do it's Constitutional duty.

It deliberately harmed the Court, harmed the US government, ignored the will of the people that voted for the president.

That is treason. It is physical.

It is an act of war on every person in the country. Denying them the normal functioning of the government.

They have no Constitutional right to willfully ignore their duties.

No matter how strongly you support their treason.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The fact that it is an attack is indisputable.

It is a fact that you insist it must be labeled an attack, yes. The rest is in dispute.

The only question is whether it is a physical or perhaps a spiritual attack.

Has anyone but you suggested that it was a spiritual attack?
So, nice strawman attack, there.

No matter how strongly you support their treason.

Another strawman.
No one's "supporting their treason." We're arguing your stance that it qualifies as treason.

 

[jonatha]

Having perused the last several pages I conclude unter is angling for a job as Trump's next Press Secretary

 

[untermensche]

Having perused the last several pages I conclude unter is angling for a job as Trump's next Press Secretary

I am under the impression I am talking with worms not full grown humans.

They gladly grant the power of dictator to elected representatives working for them.

When these dictators refuse to do their Constitutional duty it doesn't bother these worms at all.

Their minds are easy prey to dictators and control from above.

They actively support the idea of dictatorship in the workplace.

They have the government they deserve. They have no right to complain about one thing.

 

[KeepTalking]

Incorrect. Physically refusing to do something is never considered an attack, it is simple resistance. A physical attack requires violence.

The fact that it is an attack is indisputable.

Unfortunately for you, that is not the case, as several posters here are currently disputing your supposition. Either that, or, like the words 'treason' and 'war', you also don't understand the meaning of the word 'indisputable'.

You are once again incorrect. An empty chair does not physically harm any person or thing, even the chair.

It is the lack of the amount of human input prescribed by law.

Perhaps you can point me to the part of Article III of the US Constitution that sets the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. I seem to have missed that part.

It is the absence of a complete human mind from the Court.

That is harm. Physical, not spiritual harm.

Did you know that the Supreme Court was once comprised of 10 Justices? Given that, and following your reasoning, having only 9 Justices on the Supreme Court is also physical harm.

No, that would be a violation of the separation of powers, as that is the duty of the president.

The president did his duty to the Court.

He could have done more. His refusal to act on doing more, according to your reasoning, is engaging in physical harm against another branch of the government, and and act of treason. It's a pretty absurd chain of logic, but it is consistent with everything you have said in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

I am under the impression I am talking with worms not full grown humans..

How charitable.

Go fuck yourself, unter, I'm done here.

 

[untermensche]

The fact that it is an attack is indisputable.

Unfortunately for you, that is not the case, as several posters here are currently disputing your supposition.

So you are claiming deliberately harming something is not an attack?

How far will you twist everyday understandings to support treason?

It is the lack of the amount of human input prescribed by law.

Perhaps you can point me to the part of Article III of the US Constitution that sets the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. I seem to have missed that part.

Is the Constitution ALL law?

This is childishness!!

The president did his duty to the Court.

He could have done more.

Nothing is required beyond doing your duty.

Go fuck yourself, unter, I'm done here.

Your position is the position of the worm, the coward, the passive fool. It is the position that allows despots to increase their crimes without limit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Having perused the last several pages I conclude unter is angling for a job as Trump's next Press Secretary

I am under the impression I am talking with worms not full grown humans.

They gladly grant the power of dictator to elected representatives working for them.

When these dictators refuse to do their Constitutional duty it doesn't bother these worms at all.

Their minds are easy prey to dictators and control from above.

They actively support the idea of dictatorship in the workplace.

They have the government they deserve. They have no right to complain about one thing.

Curious, let's dive into the treason thing. Who can be charged with committing an act that is treason with the "blocking" of Garland? Please remember that not committing to an obligation isn't "an act".

 

[untermensche]

I am under the impression I am talking with worms not full grown humans.

They gladly grant the power of dictator to elected representatives working for them.

When these dictators refuse to do their Constitutional duty it doesn't bother these worms at all.

Their minds are easy prey to dictators and control from above.

They actively support the idea of dictatorship in the workplace.

They have the government they deserve. They have no right to complain about one thing.

Curious, let's dive into the treason thing. Who can be charged with committing an act that is treason with the "blocking" of Garland? Please remember that not committing to an obligation isn't "an act".

It is the refusal to act. The refusal to provide advice and consent.

Constitutional duties are not optional.

And those in control of bringing the matter to the Senate would be charged.

This is not maneuvering over legislation.

It is interfering with what is supposed to be a completely separate branch.