you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 74 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 48 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    the only one making a semantical argument, is Trump and his lawyers.

    The problem is that the current Supreme Court clearly would support throwing that out, and they LOVE semantics like that to justify clearly bullshit decisions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    If interpreting laws is going to just turn into how much money a wealthy individual (or anyone wealthy enough to foot the bill) can argue the semantics of anything ..... what good and what use is any law?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago

    We are long past the point where power and wealth buys better legal outcomes as evidenced by how few rich and powerful people over the last half century have spent any time in prison for their crimes compared to people with neither wealth nor power.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    They also like using history to support their decisions. If it can be shown that the presidential oath is intended to go beyond "support" I would see the court being persuaded that "support" is implied by "protect, preserve, and defend". It depends on whether the textualists or the pseudo-historians win the day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago

    The five conservative "justices" are conservatives first and "justices" second. They will always rule however the standard, bigoted, Fox-News-loving white nationalist will rule. They do this by using wordplay and bad-faith semantics.

    Every word uttered by a conservative is either deception or manipulation. Every word.

  • source
  • parent