Should Scalia's seat be vacated?

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

You didn't answer the question. Who is liable for the treason charges?

*I can see James Madison rolling his eyes with me saying that*

 

[untermensche]

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.

You didn't answer the question. Who is liable for the treason charges?

*I can see James Madison rolling his eyes with me saying that*

Your hero slave owner would be upset?

I answered your question.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You didn't answer the question. Who is liable for the treason charges?

*I can see James Madison rolling his eyes with me saying that*

Your hero slave owner would be upset?

I answered your question.

Jesus Christ man. Get over yourself. If you aren't going to answer the question, stop wasting our time.

 

[Elixir]

deliberately harming something is not an attack?

I thought
"intent means nothing"
- Untermensche

That's what you said when I pointed out that the Pug obstructionists thought they were helping. But you keep reverting...
In the immortal word of El Cheato, SAD!

 

[ronburgundy]

Wow. That's reaching.
How would blowing up the building weaken the Supreme Court?

First of all that is miles beside the point.

It is miles beside the point because you brought of the act of blowing up the the building, which is miles beside the point and a complete strawman with zero relevance to what the GOP congress did. What they did is far closer to and in fact less disruptive than what many protest do, including many led by leftist organizations, such as the BLM.

The point is not how badly the Court would be disrupted, but what the act would be called.

You are the one that just said that disrupting government is inherently an act of "warfare". So, by your own definition, whether and how much it disrupts government determines what it is called.

Illegally blowing up a government building would and should be called either an act of war or an act of terrorism because it would virtually always be done to either kill members of that government (an act of war) or to terrify members of that government to impact their policies (an act of terrorism). Whether it actually disrupts government isn't relevant to whether it is an act of war or terrorism, except by you own unreasonable definition.

Regardless, unless you are going to say that much of what BLM and other leftist protest groups have done is criminal treason, then you cannot rationally say that what Congress did is treason.

What Congress did and Trump is doing is NOT treason, it's worse than a lot of treason.
The problem is that people wrongly think that treason is the worst thing one can do to harm one's nation, and that is false.
What Congress did and most of what Trump has done are worse than many things that would be treason. They have acted to attack the basic principles on which the US government was founded and which have produced 100% of the moral, political progress over the last 2+ centuries. They are not enemies in warfare, but they most definitely enemies of the United States and the interests of the majority of its inhabitants, more dangerous to our constitutional democracy and its founding principles than all foreign enemies combined.

The reality is that most of the worst things that one can do to harm US citizens and undermine the basic principles of the US government are not only not treason, they are legal. That doesn't mean we shouldn't identify such actors as enemies of the US and act in every legal manner to stop them. It just means that its not as easy as prosecuting them for the crime of treason.

 

[blastula]

You think that if they fall on the sword, that the public will remember and reward their altruism with future victories? Blah.

I think they will remember if they engage in filibustering a nominee like Gorsuch.
Also, I think they will reward Dems being able to fight against a nominee worth fighting against.

Sure, just like when the Republicans were punished for blocking hearings on Garland.

Republicans should not be allowed to get away with stealing that seat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think they will remember if they engage in filibustering a nominee like Gorsuch.
Also, I think they will reward Dems being able to fight against a nominee worth fighting against.

Sure, just like when the Republicans were punished for blocking hearings on Garland.

Republicans should not be allowed to get away with stealing that seat.

To reiterate the OP Gorsuch is qualified, but should he be allowed to take a seat before Garland gets a hearing? Republicans can vote down Garland. Don't they have the nuts to do it?

 

[blastula]

They shouldn't vote against him then or now. There was no legitimate reason not to confirm him.

 

[Elixir]

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.

You didn't answer the question. Who is liable for the treason charges?

Since corporations are now people, I nominate one of them.

 

[ZiprHead]

There is no Constitutional requirement that there be nine judges on the SC.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is no Constitutional requirement that there be nine judges on the SC.

Then how are they supposed to commit their treason which we apparently demand from them, if they can't break a law that doesn't exist?

 

[fast]

Uncle Jim,

I see you

 

[untermensche]

Your hero slave owner would be upset?

I answered your question.

Jesus Christ man. Get over yourself. If you aren't going to answer the question, stop wasting our time.

It's right there can you not read?

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

Get over yourself with your nauseating references to Madison.

The founders of the US were some of the most immoral and hypocritical human beings ever to exist.

If anything good came from them it is sheer luck.

Madison did not even want a Bill of Rights.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no Constitutional requirement that there be nine judges on the SC.

Then how are they supposed to commit their treason which we apparently demand from them, if they can't break a law that doesn't exist?

There is a law that states how many members are on the Court.

The Constitution is not every law ever written.

Read a book.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jesus Christ man. Get over yourself. If you aren't going to answer the question, stop wasting our time.

It's right there can you not read?

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

That isn't an answer. I want names.

Get over yourself with your nauseating references to Madison.

Actually, that was referencing the poster here, not the historical person. I had something else in that post that I removed (but forgot to remove the JM reference), and I knew it would have caused him to roll his eyes, had he read it.

The founders of the US were some of the most immoral and hypocritical human beings ever to exist.

They invented a form of representative government at a scale that never had been done before and their system is has been amended only just over a dozen times, which is pretty remarkable. The founding fathers aren't angels, but their accomplishment was historical.

If anything good came from them it is sheer luck.

Well, the first time did fail badly, but they learned from their mistakes.

You seem to be getting well off target and don't want to name names for your treason trials.

 

[untermensche]

You seem to be getting well off target and don't want to name names for your treason trials.

It starts at the Senate Judiciary Committee.

If Senator Chuck Grassley refuses to bring the matter to the Committee without delay then he is the one charged.

You hang him and it won't happen again.

When there is no punishment for dictatorial behavior it perpetuates and grows.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is a law that states how many members are on the Court.

So, you could reference that....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is a law that states how many members are on the Court.

So, you could reference that....

I did a Google and it appears that there is a law by Congress. Couldn't find it, but it indicated the different times Congress changed the numbers. Of course, the question becomes, who has standing to sue over the breaking of the law.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, you could reference that....

I did a Google and it appears that there is a law by Congress. Couldn't find it, but it indicated the different times Congress changed the numbers. Of course, the question becomes, who has standing to sue over the breaking of the law.

Well, if uber's stance is that fucking with another branch's operation is treason, then any time they wrote or changed that law would be treason, wouldn't it? Establishing the number changes the 'normal function' of the court, pretty much by definition.

 

[untermensche]

I did a Google and it appears that there is a law by Congress. Couldn't find it, but it indicated the different times Congress changed the numbers. Of course, the question becomes, who has standing to sue over the breaking of the law.

Well, if uber's stance is that fucking with another branch's operation is treason, then any time they wrote or changed that law would be treason, wouldn't it? Establishing the number changes the 'normal function' of the court, pretty much by definition.

WOW!

You've finally discovered the Court is defined in law.

You've taken your first baby step from complete ignorance.

Establishing law is not treason.

Deliberately refusing to do your Constitutional duty is.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Deliberately refusing to do your Constitutional duty is.

Still don't see where 'inaction' is an 'attack.'

Nowhere in the D&D charts is there a table 'roll for inaction' that leads to damage done to an opponent.