volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@mfennvt It's not so much that the court gave Trump something he wanted but that called out a lower court for doing the wrong thing, for acting outside of correct judicial process.

It doesn't matter whether Trump wanted that or not, the judicial system has to live within correct judicial processes, no matter who is arguing cases in front of them.

SCOTUS corrected the lower court. It really doesn't have anything to do with Trump over in the other branch of government.

@bespacific Trump action against government agencies? No that's not how the federal government in the US is set up.

For better or worse, the executive power is vested in the president, so to say he's acting against government agencies doesn't really make any sense.

If Trump is doing a bad job, then hopefully the people that we elected to provide him funding through the legislative branch will cut the funding. Or impeach him. And if they don't, we need to stop reelecting the same jerks who fail us.

THAT is the solution provided for a president doing a bad job, not complaining that he's not paradoxically doing what he doesn't want to do because he wants to do what he doesn't want to do or something like that.

By definition Trump cannot act against agencies since executive branch agencies exist as an extension of himself in the US system of government.

@w7voa

@stevevladeck.bsky.social What? It was correcting lower courts for getting it wrong.

@drrjv What in the world? If you read what the court put out, it's nothing like that.

@ChrisHolladay @Nonilex

I'd go farther: she doesn't seem to understand what's going on in the court. She seems way out of her depth, way under qualified for the job that she has.

So yeah, useless, just writing things that show that she doesn't really know how courts work, making a fool of herself.

@skyfaller you don't realize this one is awful too?

@ml it's not the position of the country that it is...

The administration has gone out of its way to agree with you.

@drrimmer it's so noteworthy that Jackson is focused on the superficial instead of the substance here.

That seems to be a running theme of hers.

@steter what are you talking about?

He's pointing out that Trump is acting unconstitutionally, and you reply that the unconstitutional actions are what the Constitution gets us?

And exactly what would you have Al do?

And at the end, apparently his doing something would be capitulation?

@benfulton it wasn't a launch pad.

It was a testing site separate from the launch pad because they knew some of these test articles would almost certainly fail.

It's a sign of competence that they didn't use a launch pad for this testing. This is how real engineering goes.

@MalcolmNance Well it was safe for humans.

Safe for the rocket? No it wasn't supposed to be particularly safe for the rocket, that's why they run these tests. And that's why they keep humans away from it while they're running them.

It was controlled. They had a controlled test of a new prototype, and sometimes they explode. That's why you put in extra controls to manage the explosions.

@Julius_VD SpaceX is providing the backup.

@mathi_gwithyas

They build rockets. And they are smart enough to go through this sort of testing knowing that there will be failures, because they're looking for those failures.

Yeah they're rocket scientists. Yes this is part of rocket science.

You have a theory about building a rocket, so you test it, and that's science for you.

@PariaSansPortefeuille

This is another one of those cases where the theory takes too far of a leap.

If the US and Israel wanted to induce civil unrest they could have done other things to get there more effectively.

Yeah we could go off on conspiracy theories about how they were hiding it by not using the more effective methods, but Occam's Razor would have us at least consider that maybe, just maybe, the simpler explanation suffices.

@iran @palestine @israel

@GottaLaff It's not a shift. They always had this commitment, they just talked about prioritizing violent offenders.

And anyway, such an appeal to democratically past laws is anti-fascist. That ought to be recognized or else they might stop appealing to the laws.

@CassandraVert they followed normal grand jury processes, with a judge watching over their shoulders no less, providing unusual levels of scrutiny to see that it was on the up and up.

@Nonilex

@paul what are you referring to?

@RememberUsAlways I don't think you understand that broad swaths of the country would LIKE what those images show of Trump policies.

Republicans are already chomping at the bit to use exactly those images to defeat Democrats.

And they're probably the ones more in touch with the public mood here. Evidence? Well, they got Trump reelected even after all of the substantial things running against him.

@FrozenPeach that's an incorrect take on what's happening here, though. And yes, Jackson does show a troubling pattern of not knowing how US courts work. She was never particularly qualified for a seat on SCOTUS.

No, the Court is not manipulating the rules to benefit Trump. What rules? The Court is absolutely free to act as it sees fit, which is a really important point when OPPOSING Trump's policies.

This came up in the birthright citizenship case, where the Democratic appointees seemed not to realize they had that authority to go against him.

Jackson may believe rules are being manipulated, but that's both factually and strategically wrong of her.