volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@grrlscientist

Yes, he got a detail wrong, but his larger point was correct: RBG was pushed to retire earlier so Obama could appoint her replacement, but it was widely circulated that she intentionally chose to hold on to be replaced by the next president, who was predicted to be a Democrat as well.

That Trump was wrong about her passing after instead of before the election doesn't change the core point.

@grrlscientist

Yes, he got a detail wrong, but his larger point was correct: RBG was pushed to retire earlier so Obama could appoint her replacement, but it was widely circulated that she intentionally chose to hold on to be replaced by the next president, who was predicted to be a Democrat as well.

That Trump was wrong about her passing after instead of before the election doesn't change the core point.

@RonSupportsYou

Yeah, it's been sad-funny to watch as Trump supporters and opponents BOTH claim vehemently that the courts, and the SCOTUS in particular, have tilted the scales far in the other direction.

Based on what you hear from the left the Supreme Court is backing everything Trump is doing. Here we see the opposite.
@renewedresistance

@Nonilex

It seems Jackson calls them oblivious largely because they're not taking up her personal crusades and instead focusing on the work before the Court.

Over and over we see Jackson try to interject irrelevant issues into cases before the Supreme Court with speakers from all sides trying to explain to her that that's not how the Supreme Court, or courts of appeals in general, function in our government.

That's not a show of integrity. That's a show of undermining core principles of democracy and separation of powers and then complaining when even the other Democratic appointees rebuff that effort.

@penworks

This was such a stupid stunt that only the slowest folks would fall for.

Who with a glimmer of thoughtfulness would accept that an everyday Door Dash driver would be allowed anywhere near a President? But that's what they're asking us to believe.

If the woman was a stooge, that would be the better outcome. Imagine if you WERE a random Door Dash driver, you'd be held for hours for background checks, maybe even health screenings, before being used as a prop in, well propaganda.

And you'd lose all of the other income while sitting there.

This was a lame stunt that appeals to idiots. But that's pretty much the core of US policy these days.

@PaulWermer

Really this is a question about blanket pardons, whether they're valid. Hopefully that gets challenged and cleared up sooner than later.

(It's also about what a pathetic loser Trump is spitting out dumb lines he thinks will get him laughs, and his sycophants that force laughs at lame jokes to make him happy)

But there's hardly corrupt intent here. Wanting attention or political pats on the head are pretty normal.

@stevevladeck.bsky.social

Arguably a ruling without explanation can't set precedent because without showing how it fits into a larger context it's just a one-off.

@Nonilex

Well, they're separate and independent issues, whether birthright citizenship is constitutional and ICE going after tourism networks.

I figure it's going to be yet another case of MAGA folks yelling that the boogeymen are everywhere, investigating, and then turning up only an instance or two, but claiming it proves them right.

@Miro_Collas

This is a pretty misleading analysis if nothing else because it doesn't really take into account statutory and cultural changes over the decades.

Yes, things are different now than they were in the '50s. So what sense does it make to compare now to the '50s?

@PaulWermer

We already saw exactly that play out, though. Democrats partnered with a couple of disgruntled Republicans to pass the motion to vacate and then held fast with them to prevent Republican speakers from taking the chair.

Until Democrats didn't.

The other thing is, remember that the Speaker isn't king. Much of the work of the House is shaped by things like committee membership, and Democrats have a TON of leverage to influence that.

They already demonstrated that they have this leverage. They're just not using it for presumably political reasons.

We should hold them accountable for that choice.

@paul

That's not what the reporting says, though. Even clicking your link about the original FP report it says nothing about propping up a false pope.

It sounded like a vague threat, yes. Troubling yes. But not so concrete and actionable as propping up a false pope.

@PaulWermer hmm, I was thinking of the Motion to Vacate whereby mainly Democrats put leadership changes on the table but then let Republicans have it back for some reason.

Now I remember that they made changes to that rule when they reconvened.

Still, there are simple majority processes in the House where Democrats could make significant gains by breaking off a tiny number of Republicans since their majority is so small.

@rachel

I think it's more that he just doesn't care. That's a factual matter, after all, and their whole thing is appearances and using terms that would engage with their base.

@jd

I felt the situation change when Netanyahu had the choice to give up the US relationship if it would keep him out of prosecution.

@PaulWermer

Nonsense. Democrats in Congress cooperated when they could have taken control of the House already.

The procedures are there, and they've been demonstrated.

Unless we're going to stop reelecting Democrats who aren't interested in putting up an opposition, we'll get more of the same, but the first step is pointing out their share of the responsibility.

@ErikJonker

@haljor

Really it's about electing congresspeople who will impeach this behavior.

We don't need an age limit. We just need to stop electing and reelecting ineffective congresspeople.