“It is not obvious how many would accept a Supreme Court decision that erased Mr. Trump’s name from every ballot in the land,” Moyn writes. “And rejecting Mr. Trump’s candidacy could well invite a repeat of the kind of violence that led to the prohibition on insurrectionists in public life in the first place.”
So. Fucking. What?
Is the argument now that we don’t prosecute because of violence? That the FEAR (not proof) should be the guide? “Could” is not evidence.
@feloneouscat Exactly. Shove Reaper drones up their asses.
@feloneouscat found it.
"I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs, aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities."
@feloneouscat judges too
The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law.
@feloneouscat We're supposed to let a bunch of thugs cow us into handing them our country?
@cezee According to the thugs, their wannabes and sycophants, yes.
@feloneouscat I seem to remember an oath to enforce the law without fear or favor?
Did that change?