• ziggurism@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Did you not read the article?

    and that Trump technically did not swear an oath to “support” the Constitution. Instead, during his January 2017 inauguration, Trump swore to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution during his role as president.

    You’re talking about the reasoning in the ruling by the district judge. This article is about trump’s argument in filings to the appeals court.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Oh my fuck. Aight well that’s on me for assuming they were twisting the lawyer’s argument to make him sound bad. I should’ve known he’d hang himself out to dry as usual.

      • ziggurism@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s obviously an overly legalistic and technical argument that doesn’t speak to the merits. But it’s an appeals case, you have to argue legal errors not factual ones. I’m not a lawyer and have no idea how likely it is to succeed, but I think “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” is best legal practice, so I don’t see how this filing hangs him out to dry. It’s bad optics but I don’t think is gonna matter to anyone.

    • takeda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      sigh I guess preserve, protect and defend is not supporting.

      We have a person that likely will be the primary candidate for the GOP, that is saying he doesn’t support the constitution and all of those “patriots” will still vote for him.