volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@JaniceOCG The president, Biden, was attempting to prosecute Trump illegally.

The Supreme Court said that the prosecution could not go forward because it was illegal. In theory Biden could have gone through with the prosecution and Trump could have appealed after being found guilty, but the court said no, the prosecution was illegal and therefore there's no reason Trump would have had to go through the whole rigmarole of a jury trial and then appeal. The court said the prosecution should have been stopped right away before the trial.

And so so the Supreme Court clamped down on the ability of presidents to conduct illegal prosecutions.

@LouisIngenthron but of course he is! Legally!

The design of the US government leaves all executive branch actions at the feet of the president, that's how we keep them in check. It is really important to emphasize that because, again, that's how we hold officials responsible for what the executive branch does.

@JaniceOCG

@snippy why?

@JaniceOCG You're getting this story backwards.

They aren't finding ways for the former president to be above the law, but rather they are insisting that the current president abide by the law.

Biden can't prosecute people in ways that are not legally allowed. That's what's being called out.

The Democrats need to put forward a nominee who hasn't shirked the law as Biden has. He botched this prosecution. We need to hold him accountable for it.

@Fenix keep in mind that it was pointed out long before Supreme Court ruling that the special counsel was illegally appointed.

It's not a coordinated plan. It's just following the law.

Biden acted illegally. We need to hold Biden accountable for that, and the Democrats need to appoint someone different to run for president after his failures.

@Nonilex

@maggiemartin I mean, she was fairly quickly debunked...

@gentlegardener I mean, maybe they want to win the election?

So this comes down to priorities. Does it matter more to win the election or does it matter more to honor the results of a primary that was taken under suspicious circumstances by people who were not fully informed on the state of the candidate?

@OnePlanet so I'll say the same thing that I think I said above, what specifically are you talking about?

@wiseguyeddie

@Nonilex Yeah, when rulers around the world work to oppose their courts, that's always ended up well.

@manton I admit this is a little harsh and I don't intend it that way but, it's one of my pet peeves when people encode text as an image.

Surely there must be a better way to do it that preserves the text, right? That doesn't introduce all the downsides of converting to image? PDF? Something?

Again, I don't want to downplay the work you've put into this, it's just one of my pet peeves.

@wiseguyeddie again, read the ruling.

As Kennedy pointed out in the ruling, it had nothing to do with whether Elon Musk could donate that money. In fact, part of the reason they came down in that direction was to enable the rest of us to counter Elon Musk.

CU had nothing to do with Elon Musk giving $45 million to Trump. That wasn't in any way related to the question before the court.

What was before the court was whether you and me could pool our money to speak out in opposition to him.

Again, Kennedy spelled this out very very clearly in the ruling. He took his time to explain to us exactly what this ruling was going to do.

That somebody is misinforming you as to what was in the ruling isn't the fault of the Supreme Court, it's a matter of, stop trusting whoever is lying to you and telling you things that run exactly opposite to what was actually in the ruling, that you can read for yourself.

@PrivacyDigest No it's the exact opposite.

When Congress passes cyber security laws the Supreme Court ruling says that whoever is president has to obey them.

It reinforces the instruction to obey congressional direction in cases like cyber security

@kagan people miss that there cannot be an enforceable code of ethics because we value an independent judiciary.

To regulate the judicial branch is to cross the line between separations of power. It cannot happen under the US system of government.

And honestly, that's a good thing.

The Supreme Court needs to be judged on its rulings, not its ethics. If the rulings are good it doesn't matter where they come from. If the rulings are bad it doesn't matter where they come from.

@wiseguyeddie Read the citizens united ruling for yourself. In the ruling Kennedy goes out of his way to say the exact opposite.

Someone's lying to you.

@wiseguyeddie If you look at this term the Supreme Court has been ruling the exact opposite of what you're describing, cracking down on the executive branch's ability to ignore the law, writing it in, insisting that the president must defer to Congress.

Ruling after ruling from the Supreme Court this term goes in the exact opposite direction from what you're describing.

Usher in a fascist regime? That doesn't vibe with the Supreme Court saying no, the president can't just prosecute without legal authority and can't issue edicts that Congress hasn't approved of.

So I don't know who you're listening to, but whoever it is, they're lying to you. Stop listening to them. They are misleading you.

@wiseguyeddie what are you talking about?

No, the court didn't effectively make the presidency a monarchy, nor could it have, it doesn't have that authority.

Somebody is misinforming you and you should stop listening to those people.

@wiseguyeddie I'm asking about your position. What specifically makes you hold your position?

This isn't about me, I'm asking about your perspective regardless of mine.