Yes, because a court that found immunity in the constitution where there is none will give one flying fuck about a statute.
Do something real like campaign on adding non corrupt justices.
Or arrest them for being terrorists. And then toss them in gitmo. No laws in gitmo. They made sure of it. And when a president does it, it isn’t a crime. So go on Dark Brandon, toss em in the brig. Don’t forget the forced rectal feeding! Doctor Describes and Denounces C.I.A. Practice of ‘Rectal Feeding’ of Prisoners
If they’re in gitmo they’re still technically justices. Better for Biden to just kill them outright so that there are six “vacancies” for him to appoint new people to.
Take the shot Papa Joe. Take the shot.
I don’t see how that would work.
Setting aside the question of whether Congress can alter the matter short of a constitutional amendment, doing so using something like federal legislation, if the bill would actually apply to the incidents of Jan 6, I have a hard time seeing how that wouldn’t amount to being an ex post facto law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; it may extend the statute of limitations; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.
Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).
Uh … because:
In remarks on the Senate floor, Schumer said that Democrats are seeking to classify Trump’s election subversion acts as “unofficial” acts that are not subject to legal immunity.
That removes immunity by explicitly saying those acts cannot be official. It doesn’t change their atatus, it clarifies it.
Whether a crime was committed there is a different story for a trial court to determine.
Hey look it’s the liberals forming subcommittees while the boots thunder down the hall.
From now on I’m going to call these articles and the related actions a “Boots Subcommittee”.
Schumer called a Boots Subcommittee. It wasn’t very effective.
Once they are all in camps together they will write strongly worded letters to the camp overseer. You can bet on it!
If they need to make what he did legal and official then what he did was illegal.
They need to do a shit ton more than just hint.
