If we squint hard enough, can we just pretend they're the same exact offenses? I suppose that if the law arbitrarily punishes conceptually adjacent crimes, it's tempting for unprincipled people to go on a conflation quest.
You don't know what you're talking about. Literally. There isn't any squinting required; seditious conspiracy is the executable charge for insurrection. You're operating on your philosophical pondering being reflected in the law, when they just aren't.
It's outrageous that Trump's federal trials have not concluded, let alone begun. There should be criminal consequences not just for what Trump has done but because failure to respond establishes a dangerous precedent that a person has nothing to lose by claiming their failed election bid was stolen. Trump's legitimacy was rightly questioned back in 2016 because he lost the popular vote.
Re: Might this special boy personally object to a 14th Amendment requiring conviction as anti-democratic? Maybe!
It is outrageous, and Trump getting away with all of it
also takes away the legitimacy of the courts and general government in the view of the governed. Citing the lost of legitimacy for one course of action while ignoring that the other course of action
also leads to that loss is cherry picking. The fact that the sub-group of 'the people' losing faith in the legitimacy differ in each case isn't chance. The views of the conservative movement are almost always given priority in such cases because everyone knows they're the violent unreasonable dickheads most likely to act on it. This is leading to the ratcheting rightward of the 'enlightened centrists' and other performatively moderate. It's worth fighting against that assumed cost imbalance at every chance.
What?? It's not referring to you. Jesus. I'm the special-boy. Pay attention.
...yeah? What made you think I didn't know that? My point was that advancing an idea of section 3 of the 14th being 'undemocratic' is muddying your argument against courts enforcing section 3 being bad for other reasons. I said you weren't saying the former to advance the latter. You, for some reason, objected to you even
claiming the former, and now retreat to it being 'undemocratic' as a
hypothetical objection from you. My comment means that if it is just a
hypothetical objection from you, that's even
worse and can just be dismissed.
In Bush v. Gore, the Court stopped the recount. It was an outrageous opinion, and that you think I would whatever because you mentioned it has 18% approval seems to further demonstrate that you are ostentatiously bad at reading other people's mental states (and not just Tim Pool, Lauren Boebert, or a Black woman who attempted to steal liquor).
You're the one who cited polls as evidence of the danger of losing legitimacy. As happens so often,
you claim mind reading when it was normal reading of the words you wrote. There was no need and no attempt to assess your mental state when I pointed out that this court would go beyond what is reasonable to grab power as demonstrated in
Bush v Gore. And what happened in this case? The court goes so far beyond what is needed to rule, issuing what is in practice an advisory decision, that even
Amy Coney Barret went with the liberal Justices in calling it out. The 'Textualists' on the court of course abandoned what they normally argue in such cases. Indeed, what they argue
in rulings on other sections of the 14th.
But such rulings aren't going to cause a loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the unreasonable, so, no harm no foul.
Citing other times you were wrong about people doesn't bolster your case anyway.
