volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@taco that's not what happened, though.

The 14th doesn't stop anyone from running for anything, so it can't be used to on its own bar someone from running.

And that's not even getting into all of the issues of misinterpretation of the amendment itself.

Might as well use the 2nd Amendment to end elections altogether. It's not what the amendment says, so all bets are off at that point.

@mjg59 seems consistent to me, though.

If we managed to break into the ISS why would anyone think this guy wouldn't be able to break into our event?

@kegill the arguments aren't secret, though.

For years people have been pointing out that the language in the 14th Amendment might be misunderstood and that needed to be hashed out before it actually came into play.

It only looks "so applicable" to folks who aren't aware of the longstanding counterarguments that call to question whether it actually is applicable.

I think a lot of these experts are oversimplifying for the public when they know full well that it's more complicated.

@CNN

@bigheadtales if it's a different discussion why bring it up?

I don't consider my personal opinions to be particularly interesting or relevant, but to the extent that I'm in favor of blocking voters' say, I own it.

@dougiec3 they're just entirely different cases ruling on entirely different types of issues coming from different lower courts based on different parts of law.

So no. It depends on the merits of each case.

They will be treated differently because they are different.

@joshadell I recently heard somebody ask, " What power?"

You were right when that was the position you took.

@CelloMomOnCars in the past we've seen these sensational reports that turned out to definitely be user error, the fault of owners, so it wouldn't be THAT strange for this to be another case of that.

Sometimes when the manufacturer says it's owers' fault... it actually is.

@FullTimeSailor@noagendasocial.com funny question.

My quick skim says a plane has to be powered, and on one hand I don't believe this is powered during descent when it's acting as a lifting body BUT it is powered before, so...

Tricky!
@TwistedEagle

@lauren I think this is part of the downside of the lack of algorithm around here.

So many people brag about not having it, but this is part of the tradeoff.

@linos honestly, I have a low opinion of ActivityPub because of exactly stuff like that.

It comes across to me that AP does a lot of stuff because it was flavor of the month or off the shelf, instead of anything well-thought out.

@freemo right?

I often think, "No, I wasn't calling YOU an idiot, I was saying you're ACTING like an idiot. And, in fact, I think you're better than that, so you might want to change course."

When an actual idiot has idiotic ideas, well, there's not much point calling them out on it.

It's almost a positive thing to point out that someone's ideas are idiotic, as that suggests maybe they'll be smart enough to understand why.

@Nonilex but the justices aren't being asked to knock anyone off the ballot.

They're a court of appeals, not the original court in these cases, and that's a hugely important distinction in the US legal process.

@bigheadtales and that would also be a misreading of what I was suggesting.

Notice emphatically that I said nothing about any amendments.

I said nothing about any amendments, because I wasn't suggesting anything about any amendments.

I was merely trying to point out that standing out of the way of the peoples' abilities to express themselves in the voting booths is generally the opposite of what we think of as fascism.

That has nothing to do with any amendments.

@freemo right, and there wouldn't be any violation of 1A since the judge would be merely ensuring an orderly trial, no different from preventing someone from making a disturbance when someone is being questioned on the stand.

To put it a different way, it's not a restriction on speech but on the ability to interfere with the orderly judicial process.

The judge wouldn't at all be punishing someone for speech. The judge would be merely preventing someone from interfering with the goings on in court.

@joshadell Right, so, so much for your claim of a cushy job with nigh unlimited power.

If you want to go the direction of saying SCOTUS doesn't have power to enforce its rulings, well, your previous comment is hung out to dry.

@pomCountyIrregs

Regarding Citizen's United, there was and is SO MUCH misinformation out there about what the case actually involved and what the Court actually said.

In short, if you and me want to pool our cash to pay for a billboard to broadcast our message, the FEC was threatening to block that.

Citizens United was all about saying no, the US government has no right to stand in the way of people organizing like that, especially because wealthy people have that ability regardless, and such restriction really serves their interests at the cost of ours.

Kennedy's opinion was his normal level of poetry and really goes through expressing that stance of the court, but too few people actually sit down and read it.

@RememberUsAlways

@Doppelganger75 nah, it's social media.

No sense taking any of the strangers here seriously enough to get worked out.

@Amoshias @cpoliticditto@mas.to

@J12t@social.coop keep in mind that the size of Instagram vs Threads might make it much more costly for them to roll that out to instagram as well.

Doesn't mean it's not going to happen, but it's definitely something they'd be considering on their side.