• @halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      451 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 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?

      • vortic
        link
        fedilink
        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
          51 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.