volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@Nonilex this kind of thing reminds me of the Futurama episode where the captain is relieved of command due to failure to prevent mutiny.

Outfits like CREW spend their days promoting this stuff about bias and then insist that the justice must step down due to the appearance that they themselves promoted?

It's absurd.

@Bellison22 keep in mind that they were calling Harris a DEI hire based on Biden's own words.

Biden needs to be held accountable for stuff like that. He botched so many things.

@ArneBab of course Republicans will try, that's just how this game is played.

And I'd also emphasize that if Republicans are successful, then Democrats need to bear responsibility for botching things so badly.

Seriously, it's amazing that Biden has screwed up so badly over the years, fumbling issue after issue that should have been easy home runs. That's part of why it's so great that he got dumped. It's accountability for his own unforced errors.

Now we just need Democrats to coalesce around someone who's actually competent.

That any of this matters, that Trump even has a chance of winning, reflects how badly Democrats have botched all of this, so they'll reap what they sow.

@kbsez folks being told that the Chevron ruling was a win for corporate interests need to step back for a second and ask why it was called Chevron in the first place.

The Chevron case was a win for Chevron the petroleum corporation. By reversing the rule the Supreme Court TOOK AWAY that win for corporate interests.

Chevron allowed presidents to offer favors to corporations... like Chevron. SCOTUS said no, that's not OK.

@foodnpolitics no, you have the SCOTUS ruling backwards.

What SCOTUS said was that the president does NOT have king-like powers to prosecute legal activity. The president is not free to haul people into court with such wide discretion.

So many people are missing that the case was about prosecutorial procedure, not legal liability.

And so it mainly addressed the power of the prosecutor, putting limits on what the president can do with his power.

@mastodonmigration

@martlund the one has nothing to do with the other.

The entire court sits for appeals from the lower courts, so number of justices doesn't need to match in our current system.

@gearhead that's not what they decided, though.

If you read the ruling, it specifically talks about presidents being subject to criminal prosecution.

What it said was that the administration may not engage in illegal prosecution, which may be pretty important given Harris's history. She seems awfully eager to use her power inappropriately, both as AG and during her time in the Senate.

@ArneBab keep in mind how tenuous these connections are getting.

If the destination is Democrats being blocked from electing a Democrat, then here we're talking about a legal case of questionable standing based on arrangements that Democrats made for themselves with questionable legal basis even if standing is proven resulting in restrictions on the use of some funds.... and all of that still requiring the leap to "and therefore Democrats can't elect their candidate."

It's quite a long reach.

@nilsskirnir not at all. The ruling was very clear that presidents can only act within legal authority, and Biden has no legal authority to arrest the Supreme Court.

@chemoelectric

@blainsmith it's like choosing between hammers and screwdrivers: they are completely different tools with completely different use cases.

BitTorrent is a dumb system for transferring bulk files as fast as possible, while IPFS is an intelligent database for managing small bits of information.

It's like asking to choose between a sports car and a semi truck: they're simply different for doing different things.

@nilsskirnir the SCOTUS ruling specifically did not grant such monarchic powers, though.

Anyone saying otherwise is telling you falsehoods in contradiction to the actual ruling.

@dougiec3 the ruling went out of its way to emphasize that the president definitely doesn't have absolute authority.

The ruling specifically went through examples of limitations on presidents' powers, talking about prosecuting presidents.

There's so much misinformation out there that's easily debunked by simply reading the ruling.

@waysideollie but he has no official authority to "fix" SCOTUS, which is core to the ruling.

@Handydude Trump is so hated that so many of us are begging for a workable candidate to vote for.

Almost anyone. Put almost anyone on the ballot and we will vote for them.

Unfortunately Biden and Harris have tarnished their records so badly that they might be the only ones that could lose to Trump.

Give us any vaguely competent nominee.

@samohTmaS @bronakins

@Phracker2Art then I don't understand what your central argument is.

What are you trying to say?

@ArneBab of course it's how law works. And we can see that play out everyday as we watch Court decisions come down and impact the real world.

That's how we know our legal rights and responsibilities. We point to law. Like, driving down the road we point to the speed limit sign to know that we can drive this fast.

Yes, this is how law works.

@Phracker2Art It's not nitpicking because pointing it out completely undermines the claim that they would be able to underpay their employees.

If you're saying that's the mechanism by which they would underpay employees than it really matters that the mechanism you're identifying doesn't exist.

No, challenging that law would not lead to the result that you bring up, so it's core to what you're saying.

@Nonilex It's a bizarre thing to say that originalism stole the Constitution since originalism is all about promoting the Constitution. So it's hard to imagine what this person might be talking about, it seems paradoxical and contradictory on its face.

@DoesntExist@mastodon.social If you read their ruling, scotus said the opposite, they spent paragraph after paragraph explicitly laying out that the president should face legal repercussions.

Heck, their conclusion was that the lower court should continue to pursue repercussions against Trump.

Yes, there's a lot of loudmouths trying to misinform everybody. You should stop listening to them because they are lying to you.