volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@garyackerman Well it depends on the connection between the two.

@bibliolater I was recently hearing about the disconnect between amount of energy produced versus amount that could actually be transmitted over energy grids.

I wonder if this statistic measures the former and not the latter.

@feditest maybe it's good to focus on the real world implications of the incompatibilities one by one?

For example, will this lack of a header actually impact anybody in the real world? I don't know the answer.

@Incognitim meh, this is just how courts work.

If the prosecutor s needed to meet closer deadlines then they might have prosecuted differently. A lot of this is really based on what prosecutors ask the courts for, knowing that if you go to the court with a complicated ask, that's going to take more time to resolve.

Frankly, I think we need to hold Biden responsible for a lot of these timing issues, including sometimes the state prosecutions as the feds might not have acted as quickly as they need to to get things resolved even there.

@Kozmo this article overlooks just how weak the court rulings on abortion had become over the years. They were always on the chopping block, and they had already been pretty discredited over the decades.

That's really important because there's a difference between those weak rulings versus strong ones expressing our rights today.

@vigilantfox meh, The reason this claim fails is because courts wouldn't have moved fast enough even if a challenger was in the right to block the vaccines.

So no, they didn't have to destroy the drugs for this reason.

Really it was just all politics, trying to bash Trump and many Republicans and other groups that were seen as a challenge.

It had nothing to do with money. It had to do with scoring political points and winning elections.

@Downshift The reason it is an empty threat is because there is no such authority to impose what they are reportedly calling for.

It's like, if I have a concrete plan to visit Europe this summer by flapping my arms and flying my way across the ocean, that still doesn't mean it's possible.

@Incognitim No, the two situations are extremely different, and the two courts operate in different ways, with different procedures, and just generally, the two situations are apples and oranges.

Just to name one example, in the case of Cannon they are still moving forward with court processes, there is still argument to be made and briefing to be done. But at the Supreme Court all of that homework is already in.

The case before Cannon hasn't been submitted, while the case before the Supreme Court has.

@Lyle It's not an all or nothing question, though. It's also about how much of society's resources should be allocated in that direction given lower marginal benefits the farther you go.

So it's not just whether disaster prevention is acceptable, but whether any particular program has benefits worth the costs.

@mreader the article goes off the rails right from its headline.

Take the line, "Many of the justices seemed uninterested in addressing the facts of Trump’s case," and the response is YES EMPHATICALLY SO! Because that's not what the court was there to judge, and didn't have the authority to judge anyway.

The Court was sitting as a appeals court judging a particular question brought before it, and the question had absolutely nothing to do with the facts of Trump's case.

Really, this is a misunderstanding in the general public of how US courts work and the function of the Supreme Court.

This article is based on the premise that the Court is something that it's not.

@david1 right, it wouldn't be up to the courts to intervene in such a case. That's not how US courts work, as Trump found out when he tried to go that route.

It would primarily be up to our elected congresspeople to notice the invalid ballots.

@aspensmonster@octodon.social money isn't speech and corporations aren't people.

So many misunderstand US law and misrepresent what courts have said on that count.

@kshernandez right, folks need to be looking for solutions through democratic processes, making arguments that compel the public at large, instead of looking to courts to impose changes they want to see, that the courts don't really have authority to impose anyway.

People get really off track reaching for the court like that.

@timo21 it's not a glitch, though.

SCOTUS is sitting as a court of appeals in those two cases, so this is simply the process that such courts work through.

Prosecutors didn't have to go down this route, but they did, and so here we are.

@Nonilex

@Free_Press I mean, Republicans reject her, so it's hard to call it their clown show.

Without Democrats threatening to vote in support of the extremists they'd be laughed out of the room immediately.

@upstreamism what is Lessig going on about now?

That wasn't left obscure at all in the oral argument. It was a focus of justices' attention!

Lessig is a clown.

@dougiec3 no?

If you have an actual argument against something laid out in the logic behind a ruling, then present it.

Otherwise you're just falling into conspiracy theory here.

@maeve That'a not how the Supreme Court works, though, in the US system of government.

SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to support or not support Idaho in a case like this.

It just runs contrary to basic civics.

@JaniceOCG @newsopinionsandviews

What in the world are you talking about?

@x_minus_t@mstdn.social that was debunked pretty much immediately.

Biden's doing nobody any favors by dredging it up again now.