volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@mnutty well, the reluctance seems to be wanting more information about how the support is being managed, not the support itself.

A lot of Republicans are concerned that there isn't enough effective support. They are in favor of support, just not what they see as ineffective support.

This is a very critical distinction.

@GuyNamedBrian hey, just remember, there are serious arguments that the federal law specifying the Speaker as second in line is unconstitutional as Speakers aren't members of the Cabinet!

So instead of having Johnson as president we'd just have utter chaos as THAT argument is dealt with.

@danwentzel that's a mischaracterization of what the article presents, though.

The examples CNN provides don't support criminalizing of gay sex, but rather call out the Supreme Court for supposedly overstepping its authority to do the opposite, to insist on nullifying laws.

That's an argument about how federal and state courts interact, which is a serious topic, not one in favor of calling states to adopt certain laws, which is pretty much the opposite.

And that's not even getting into his writing as part of his job as a lawyer involved in a case.

@cafechatnoir if that was true then it wouldn't have taken so long for the moderate Republicans to deal with the nut jobs.

They would have just elected the nominee of the Republicans who moved against McCarthy and been done with it.

But no, the GOP has spent vote after vote trying to reject those extremists, but with Democrats supporting the nutjob cause they had to listen to them.

@Researchbuzz right, and just like any other mining, its impact reflects the value it provides to those with skin in the game to shoulder those costs.

@junecasagrande the legitimacy of Supreme Court justices is determined by appointment by a president with consent of elected Senators.

So yes, he is legitimate as he has those things.

I'm sorry you don't like him--I suspect you've been hearing a bunch of misinformation about his term in office--but he remains legitimate.

If your accusations are proven true then he can be impeached. However, these salacious claims have thus far been pretty out there, amounting to conspiracy theories that haven't gained too much of a hold.

@Dandomino a typical fascist promoting policies of transferring power down from where it's been concentrated?

Fascinating...

@chrisgeidner the problem is, yes, his brief was unambiguous, but people are misrepresenting what was in it anyway.

It's just the post-fact world we live in these days.

@marynelson8 democracy elected him, though.

And I'm positive that we will go on to re-elect almost all of the people involved in this whole circus.

@maniajack same thing.

Speakers don't have nearly the authority many folks on here are freaking out about.

I really don't know who's been talking as if the Speaker has so much absolute power, but that's just not how the various rules and laws of the US government are set up.

@evan bad because the result might be new laws and regulations that instances will struggle with.

@3dogcouch it shouldn't be a problem to charge and try a justice for breaking a federal law.

It has to be breaking of an actual federal law, though, not simply the way the justice conducts themselves in office. That's what impeachment is for; none of the DOJ's business.

Remember, the reason there's a special exception against charging a sitting president is because DOJ acts under authority of the president, so it would be the president charging himself, causing a conflict of interests.

That conflict doesn't come up with justices.

@GottaLaff

@dcdeejay well, the Supreme Court doesn't generally sit in judgment of others.

As it's primarily an appellate court, it mainly judges other courts--their decisions--not people.

@hrefna honestly, if a user is that concerned about seeing content they don't want to see, the solution is probably more along the lines of opting in than blocking out, only allowing content from preapproved speakers than reacting to content after the fact.

There have been longstanding ideas with names like WoT, Web of Trust, where folks are judged based on their in person connections to you, and it's one solution to only display content that's trusted by people the user trusts.

And this sort of thing can be tailored to the individual user, to empower them to have the experience they prefer.

@dangillmor Jesus, if you think Johnson is a far right extremist, then it sounds like you haven't had much contact with far right extremists.

They're rejecting the guy for being too moderate.

@Jeffrey_Smith@mastodon.social that's not what happened, though, as confirmed by the Congressional Record.

Yes, a whole lot of people circulated that narrative, but it was a lie.

@marynelson8

@basichornyhubby

I mean, you just listed off a bunch of claims that have been overblown.

So... those.

@marynelson8

@chiefgyk3d

Right, but AP has shown growing pains and technological issues that make it possible that in the end we'll talk about how AP has been the one kneecapping itself.

Bluesky might have the better solutions that allow it to succeed where AP has failed, if they ever manage to finally release.

We'll see.

@FinchHaven @w3c