• halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year 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.

    • vortic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.