The dispute comes from Colorado — but it could have national implications for Trump and his political fate.

  • Clay_pidgin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    10
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Mitchell’s “officer” hair splitting is ridiculous.

    Roberts’(?) Questions about military officers defying the order of a president after he committed insurrection has nothing to do with this case, does it?

    Edit: I’m coming around a bit on the Officer /officer of question. A lot of constitutional law is about stupidly precise questions about the language, and as we saw under Trump’s presidency, the laws really aren’t written robustly and there are tons of things that have been assumed to be obvious but don’t hold up.

    • @kescusay
      link
      English
      2010 months ago

      I don’t think it does. Soldiers are already required to disobey illegal orders anyway.

      • Clay_pidgin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        That’s a good point. Does that extend explicitly to orders from people not in their chain of command? There MUST be something in the UCMJ about it.

        Under Murray’s (Colorado’s) argument that the insurrection disqualification is self enforcing and necessarily instant, that would mean Pence was the president until the Biden transition, wouldn’t it?

        • @kescusay
          link
          English
          410 months ago

          No, Murray’s argument wouldn’t apply to someone already occupying the office. Unfortunately, once someone is actually holding the office, they can only be removed by impeachment.

          • Clay_pidgin
            link
            fedilink
            English
            310 months ago

            I don’t think I agree with that, and I did hear one of the male justices (I can’t match names to voices) ask about it. Impeachment is provided as a means to remove someone from office, but nowhere does it say that it’s the ONLY way to remove someone.