volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@sj_zero well, I just try to emphasize that in most cases SCOTUS is sitting as a court of appeals, so it's naturally judging lower courts more than the individual people named.

@KimPerales never overlook the possibility that maybe the decisions just happened to be correct on their own bases?

So many are so mislead about what each of those decisions actually said, though they're all in the public record.

Sometimes it's not a conspiracy. Sometimes the ruling is simply the one required by the case before the court.

@ginaintheburg but that's how the US works: different states have wide latitude to design their procedures in whatever way best suits their populations and communities.

Heck, if FL doesn't have much common sense, it only makes sense that their government would reflect that :)

SCOTUS didn't really have jurisdiction in a case like this. It was right for them to stay out of it, since there weren't really federal issues at hand.

@DoesntExist@mastodon.social those claims were debunked...

@elan right, but there's a fundamental principle in US government that we have checks and balances to protect against officials who are lacking in objectivity.

If the judge is the worst, most biased, most corrupt judge ever, well, that's why there are procedures to address and mitigate such things.

The US system doesn't leave grant such sweeping power to any individuals. There are always checks in place specifically because we don't want corrupt people to have such authority.

@Hyolobrika to give a taste of the case, on appeal to the DC Circuit, that court issued a ruling with a sweeping claim rejecting the idea that civil immunity can be analogized to criminal immunity ever.

Not just about Trump or accusations about Trump, but ever.

So the question now is whether the DC circuit went too far, and people wondering why justices didn't focus on Trump don't seem to understand that procedural history.

This case doesn't let Trump off of any hooks. It just reviews whether the DC Circuit misread the rules, regardless of Trump.
@2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da @sj_zero

@elan That's not how the US system works, though. There are checks on judges to make sure they don't just make a mess of things.

Nothing like this is to just one judge. That would be a stupid thing to do, so the US doesn't do it.

@Hyolobrika

The actual argument before the Supreme Court is extremely tame, but there's so much sensational misinformation circulating out there.

It is simply this: a former president cannot be held criminally responsible for OFFICIAL and LEGAL actions he undertook while in office.

That's right, it's saying you can't hold someone criminally liable if they didn't break the law, and this is specifically wrt a former president.

That should be obvious, right? So why are we talking about it? Meh, technical legal procedural issues triggered it.

@2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da @sj_zero

@Hyolobrika Trump's own team rejected that claim in oral arguments, among other places.

No serious person can believe that nothing a president does is illegal.

@2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da @sj_zero

@elan completely different system.

In the US, you have these different systems of courts.

Anyway, well look in on it. Looks like the prosecutors have made a mess of it.

@ginaintheburg who said anything about validity?

I'm talking about practicality and also justice.

Maybe I can't control whether an anvil falling on my head is going to harm me, but we can absolutely control whether crossing the street is going to get us thrown in jail.

@realcaseyrollins I just found this really funny :)

@dalfen but they aren't leaders.

Of the three branches of government, justices are about as far from being leaders as you possibly could be

@dougiec3 The Supreme Court cannot and will not come to such a decision because that question was not before the court.

It was not the question presented to the court, and at argument both sides before the court confirmed that they were not pursuing such a stance.

This despite a ton of misreporting on the case.

@elan If you pull up the docket, the judge goes through all of the timeline pointing out how the time was spent, talking about the process, and generally addressing those claims that timeline had been manipulated.

Legal processes take time. They are supposed to, because real people have their real lives threatened by them, so they want to take their time and get it right.

Court procedures take time. If you want something fast, then the court is the wrong place to look for it.

@ginaintheburg again, I would argue that if we can't understand the law then it is fundamentally unjust on its face.

To say that for the sake of justice we must have laws that we can't understand strikes me as a self-defeating claim.

It is to say we must have an unjust system for the sake of justice.

And I firmly reject that stance.

@elan No, the court documents debunk that sort of claim.

@albnelson so in your position I would say the takeaway should be that you were wrong about what you thought were commonly held social norms.

Turns out they weren't.

And so hopefully this is a chance for you to reevaluate some misconceptions that you had.

It turns out your beliefs were wrong, and hopefully you can learn and not be confused in the future.