Jump to content

If Trump is convicted of treason, should the Supreme court members he put in place be removed?...


If Trump is found 'guilty' for Treasoon, should his appoitees to the Supreme Court be removed (and unable to overturn)?  

6 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Given Trump alone selected the justices that turned against the vast majority regardless of the will of the public,

...if he were to be found guilty in a tribunal jury made up of the people (as a vote), should his significant actions that potentially lead to the a conviction of the crime be removed?

That is, since Trump intentionally set up the court to intentionally enable his insurrection NOT be convicted, is not his treason enough to relieve those justices?

 

Obviously, I am for this but though this might be a distinct 'philosophical' thread for those questioning this.. What do you think?

 

Edited by Scott Mayers
spelling, emphasized the question
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone really think Trump will ever be found guilty of anything??

A interesting hypothetical question but it is no way ever going to come to pass.

Oh and Trump alone did not select the judges. they all went though the vetting process and confirmed by the Senate.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but their past performance (as a predictor of their future performance) should be scrutinized; especially the Roe V Wade mess, and checks and balances should be put in place to prevent any further overreach/misunderstanding.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Luz P. said:

No, but their past performance (as a predictor of their future performance) should be scrutinized; especially the Roe V Wade mess, and checks and balances should be put in place to prevent any further overreach/misunderstanding.

 

They way supreme court judges are nominated and vetted is all political, same in Canada. The philosophy of the judge will always be in line with the political leader in power.

The problem is the "for life" appointment. Maybe not to prevent but to lessen the party affiliation and philosophy  maybe judges should only be in office for 5 or so years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Does anyone really think Trump will ever be found guilty of anything??

No but the goal is to damage his character enough so he can't run again, apparently.

Today had some doozies: Trump assaulting his own security agents, trying to grab the wheel of the Presidential Motorcade... tantrums etc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No but the goal is to damage his character enough so he can't run again, apparently.

Today had some doozies: Trump assaulting his own security agents, trying to grab the wheel of the Presidential Motorcade... tantrums etc.

Yet he is still leader of the republican party with huge following.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2022 at 1:38 PM, ExFlyer said:

Does anyone really think Trump will ever be found guilty of anything??

A interesting hypothetical question but it is no way ever going to come to pass.

Oh and Trump alone did not select the judges. they all went though the vetting process and confirmed by the Senate.

Are you asserting that he isn't guilty of anything or just speaking about how the technical difficulty of doing so will be overruled by whomever controls the Senate majority regardless?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2022 at 1:54 PM, Luz P. said:

No, but their past performance (as a predictor of their future performance) should be scrutinized; especially the Roe V Wade mess, and checks and balances should be put in place to prevent any further overreach/misunderstanding.

 

The original thought regarding 'republics' from Plato's ideal of having duty bound non-partisan intelligence which was assumed to be universally conforming has been corrupted by partisan politics that redefine the 'intellect' as whomever those in power alone get to decide should speak through them. That is, the concept of a "supreme court" places not those who are necessarily believers in raw intelligence but in emotionally-bound favoritism to select subsets of people with LOYALTY placed on top. So...

Should we not question whether assignments to such powerful positions be placed by a single person such as the President. The  postion of President no longer fits with the original concept of 'republic' either, ....as well as to the concept of "Senate". The U.S. uses the Senate as the body representing OWNERS rather than the original regional interests apart from particular people's interests, such as the envrionement. Thus, they do not represent the 'intellect' either but a type of overruler of democracy FOR the wealthy, given they command those regions in which their ownership interests are met.

Should we not redress the original concepts philosophically to determine WHY what originally begins with one ideal gets perverted to serve the very opposite view of these founding concepts? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Yet he is still leader of the republican party with huge following.

He is being propped up by other Republicans because he is overty 'accountable' as an independent individual but 'unaccountable' to the rest. The other members, even if they don't like him, can EXCUSE their own flaws as due to him alone for proving he IS a lone wolf actor in his decision making. The choice to keep him their is because he points to himself as the party's decision maker and relieves the burden of the latent extremism within the ideology of the Right so that they can operate under the radar.

I blame the supporters who turn their heads away and who borrows the same kind of corrupt belief in DECEPTION regardless. The point here is to ask whether there even IS any realistic means to EVER hold Presidents accountable. The reason Putin opted for overt violent war against Ukraine was because he too realized how effective the power of absolution CAN be maintained for ANY act of a 'republican' style leader as himeself. If Trump can get away with murder and his own countrymen cannot do fuck all to hold him or his party accountable, it proves that he too should be as bold knowing that the rest of the world cannot do fuck all to remove him from power also.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, FurriesRock said:

No, because Trump only nominated them.  It was congress who confirmed their appointments.

See above resonse regarding another asserting the same. But to add a point, should the options of selection be itself decided independent of the population to have power to veto? The confirmation was to the technical majjority of a branch of government that defaults to favor powerful people exclusively of the population at large. 

I cannot vote here in Canada for a similar type of reason: the SELECTION of which TYPE of parties get to even be permitted to exist is limited to how the PRIOR parties in power get to collectively eliminate competition. By presenting no real alternatives AFTER the nomination, only those of the Senate made up of PRIOR party affiliations and the coincidence of a technical majority get to 'confirm'; the rest are ignored. 

The problem here is that there is overt corruption that empowers MORE of those who act even more corrupt when they  are literally obvious about their deception. AS to asserting "congress" as confirming, for instance, deceptively hides the fact that the DEMOCRATIC part, the 'lower' house representing the people, is completely overruled regardless. The Senate, being an 'upper' house, represents only the wealthy minority, as does the Supreme Courts. We are basically held hostage by wealthy people regardless, countering the ideals of what 'democracy' means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Are you asserting that he isn't guilty of anything or just speaking about how the technical difficulty of doing so will be overruled by whomever controls the Senate majority regardless?

I assert nothing. I am saying the chances of him being held accountable or being guilty are zero to none.

He may suffer public damage but he will legally suffer nothing.

This has nothing to do with the Congress , senate or other political offices. It has everything to do with undisputed evidence proven in court.

Criminal court is far different and far more stringent than civil court or the court of public opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

He is being propped up by other Republicans because he is overty 'accountable' as an independent individual but 'unaccountable' to the rest. The other members, even if they don't like him, can EXCUSE their own flaws as due to him alone for proving he IS a lone wolf actor in his decision making. The choice to keep him their is because he points to himself as the party's decision maker and relieves the burden of the latent extremism within the ideology of the Right so that they can operate under the radar.

I blame the supporters who turn their heads away and who borrows the same kind of corrupt belief in DECEPTION regardless. The point here is to ask whether there even IS any realistic means to EVER hold Presidents accountable. The reason Putin opted for overt violent war against Ukraine was because he too realized how effective the power of absolution CAN be maintained for ANY act of a 'republican' style leader as himeself. If Trump can get away with murder and his own countrymen cannot do fuck all to hold him or his party accountable, it proves that he too should be as bold knowing that the rest of the world cannot do fuck all to remove him from power also.

He is propped up by the far right Americans which have become a greater portion of Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Should we not question whether assignments to such powerful positions be placed by a single person such as the President. The  postion of President no longer fits with the original concept of 'republic' either, ....as well as to the concept of "Senate". The U.S. uses the Senate as the body representing OWNERS rather than the original regional interests apart from particular people's interests, such as the envrionement. Thus, they do not represent the 'intellect' either but a type of overruler of democracy FOR the wealthy, given they command those regions in which their ownership interests are met. 

I love where you’re coming from, a concept of integrity that unfortunately, I don’t see anywhere practiced in politics.

Are things getting worse? Where they always like this? Or are we simply older/wiser and can see the forest for the trees?

Seems everyone is up for sale and the SCOTUS is no different. Intellect or a watered version of it may be still around; however, loyalty takes precedence and permeates all endeavors.

A single person shouldn’t be appointing public servants for long-life tenures. Many conservatives think of Trump as a “Godsend”, but he’s (like all of us) a fallible individual with limited knowledge. The only solution I see, is having limited appointments, say of 10 years.

And that’s the main challenge the USA is facing today, the country has been polarized to an unhealthy/religious degree.  Many conservatives truly believe this is the end of times and that their fighting evil represented by the demonic Democrats.  When church and state mix, you can expect nefarious consequences.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I assert nothing. I am saying the chances of him being held accountable or being guilty are zero to none.

He may suffer public damage but he will legally suffer nothing.

This has nothing to do with the Congress , senate or other political offices. It has everything to do with undisputed evidence proven in court.

Criminal court is far different and far more stringent than civil court or the court of public opinion.

 

If a criminal robs a bank and then gives it away to a non-profit organization, like a modern-day RobinHood, although the transfer of moneys may be legitimately 'confirmed' as real, do these non-profits have a right to keep the money? 

Doesn't the acts of someone convicted of theft require giving up the right to keep properties they own that at least cover what they stole even if they gained those pariticular thiings themselves legitimately.

It may be technically impossible to do anything practically with present barriers, but the philosophical question here  first is whether the logic is valid about whether a convicted President's acts during the phase of his crimes justify removing the benefitical procedes gained by him, such as the act of appointing the very judges who have the power to overturn any conviction? 

If there is no accountability to actions of those in high places regardless, isn't it suggesting that others in this world should simiply give up any compassion for collections of people, especially 'democratic' ideals, or lose for NOT being equally corrumpt and deceptive? The nature of distrust depending upon the culprits of the problems are creating the very assurance of success BY these culprits regardless of what happens after their acts. Convicted or not, Trump's acts 'trump' any questions of his credibility. 

I believe that if we don't address these or just let these pass, the only choice for us all is to align ourselves ONLY with those favoring our particular welfare. And these will be based upon the lowest 'common denominators', one's own race or sex. Instead of fighting against "poverty", for example, we are forced to fight for "poverty of MY people ONLY". Such discrete classifications isolate them making it impossible for the actual underlying issue to be treated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

They were not “put in place” by Don Trump. They were vetted by others through a little old thing called democratic process. 

So Trump had absolutely no role? I just explained how this post-hoc reasoning justifies a criminal to steal money then give it to the charity of their desire to assure the benefits of the crime are preserved in favor of the criminal regardless. 

So can you please answer in light of the argument rather than just repeating what I already acknowledge as 'fact'? 

Edit addition: It can be a 'fact' that the money given to a charity by a criminal be 'certified' real; The question is whether this coincidental 'confirmation' of money received by the charities suffice in permitting them to keep it. (?) 

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

 

If a criminal robs a bank and then gives it away to a non-profit organization, like a modern-day RobinHood, although the transfer of moneys may be legitimately 'confirmed' as real, do these non-profits have a right to keep the money? 

Doesn't the acts of someone convicted of theft require giving up the right to keep properties they own that at least cover what they stole even if they gained those pariticular thiings themselves legitimately.

It may be technically impossible to do anything practically with present barriers, but the philosophical question here  first is whether the logic is valid about whether a convicted President's acts during the phase of his crimes justify removing the benefitical procedes gained by him, such as the act of appointing the very judges who have the power to overturn any conviction? 

If there is no accountability to actions of those in high places regardless, isn't it suggesting that others in this world should simiply give up any compassion for collections of people, especially 'democratic' ideals, or lose for NOT being equally corrumpt and deceptive? The nature of distrust depending upon the culprits of the problems are creating the very assurance of success BY these culprits regardless of what happens after their acts. Convicted or not, Trump's acts 'trump' any questions of his credibility. 

I believe that if we don't address these or just let these pass, the only choice for us all is to align ourselves ONLY with those favoring our particular welfare. And these will be based upon the lowest 'common denominators', one's own race or sex. Instead of fighting against "poverty", for example, we are forced to fight for "poverty of MY people ONLY". Such discrete classifications isolate them making it impossible for the actual underlying issue to be treated.

Not sure how your analogies relate.


There is no and will be no "convicted president". The inquirey has no legal standing. It is there solely to try and embarrass Trump. He has proven himself to be un-embarassable.

He may, and I mean maybe, lose in the court of public opinion but only in the democrats minds. Republicans still worship him. I watch Fox New Network just to see how they think it is going and he is winning and all the witness are liars.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2022 at 12:38 PM, ExFlyer said:

 

A interesting hypothetical question but it is no way ever going to come to pass.

 

And it would be even more interesting if you replaced Trump's name with Biden where I would say there's even more reason for criminal complaint if not impeachment. 

Think November after which the odds say it will be Republicans in control of the house. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that there's no reason to think Trump will actually be convicted or even tried on something as out there as "treason" though. All those baseless charges against Trump have failed so far.

And I doubt even an unrepenting witch hunter like Shifty Adam Schiff is nutty enough to try for a treason charge. Although maybe we should never doubt how far the nuttiness of a Democrat will take them. Shifty might even join the Squad for all we know.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

And it would be even more interesting if you replaced Trump's name with Biden where I would say there's even more reason for criminal complaint if not impeachment. 

Think November after which the odds say it will be Republicans in control of the house. 

Says a Trumpian :)

I don't think Biden will run again (maybe too old and ill to run again).

Trump is just a big loser that will not come to grips with reality and unfortunately has so many Americans that worship him.

The truly unfortunate thing is that there does not seem to be a real replacement for Biden on the Democrat side and too many Trump disciples on the Republican side.

I agree the republicans look like they will win the houses back unless the inquiry can really stick it to Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

So Trump had absolutely no role? I just explained how this post-hoc reasoning justifies a criminal to steal money then give it to the charity of their desire to assure the benefits of the crime are preserved in favor of the criminal regardless. 

So can you please answer in light of the argument rather than just repeating what I already acknowledge as 'fact'? 

Edit addition: It can be a 'fact' that the money given to a charity by a criminal be 'certified' real; The question is whether this coincidental 'confirmation' of money received by the charities suffice in permitting them to keep it. (?) 

Other people had their say, and that is a fact. I never said Trump played “no role” either. It is allowed by due process, whether you like the choices he made or not. Somebody is always gonna be disappointed.

That doesn’t mean you can just go ahead and remove them. That sounds like something they would do in commie pinko land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

 

I don't think Biden will run again

Does it matter.

Dems don't seem to care that Trump is no longer being President. Pelosi and Shifty sure seem to be desperate to nail him for something. They're like Boris and Natasha going after Moose and Squirrel.

And that's inspired the other side to consider doing to Biden what Dems with their RINO toadies are trying so hard to do to Trump. 

Ask Jon Voight.

Ask MTG

Quote

“I’m in complete agreement and I’ve introduced 4 articles of impeachment of Joe Biden.”

#ImpeachBiden

 

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2022 at 11:57 AM, ExFlyer said:

Not sure how your analogies relate.


There is no and will be no "convicted president". The inquirey has no legal standing. It is there solely to try and embarrass Trump. He has proven himself to be un-embarassable.

He may, and I mean maybe, lose in the court of public opinion but only in the democrats minds. Republicans still worship him. I watch Fox New Network just to see how they think it is going and he is winning and all the witness are liars.

 

 

That generic, "Not sure how your analogies relate" only tells me that you are evading the questions wholesale without a willingness to debate it. If I have specific arguments that definitively prove anything the anti-democratic anti-rationalists , Trump-worshipping bigots and racists simply dismiss makeing sense of the logic as though it is a foreign language. 

Trump literally believes IN lying as it correlates with his exterme belieif in absolute 'right' to EXPLOIT any means to gain a profit regardless of any actual moral conduct. I don't know anyone even on the "left" who asserts Biden, as the present contrasting representative in power now is remotely as though he is some God that Trump is given by the cult of irrational fandom granted to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,214
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Ronald Tolkien
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...