joker-dancing

    • PKMKII [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      Conservative control of the Supreme Court aside, it’s never been firmly established if the President constitutes an officer of the United States per the 14th amendment. So there’s a lot of room for interpretation, and some decent legal arguments, that it doesn’t.

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          This isn’t even an exaggeration. There’s a real theory real legal academics support that’s basically “a sufficiently talented judge can come to whatever conclusion they want and put a defensible gloss on it.” There are similar theories of legal interpretation that posit even the most plain of plain language in a statute or constitution can be plausibly re-written by a motivated court.

          • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hell, its based when this method is used for progress.

            Funny enough, its conservatives who pretend theyre sticking to the Constitution as written (or that “what the foundinf fathers intended” bullshit). But ive seen progressive advocates openly just say “no just interpret however you need to to do the right thing.”