volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@theothersimo if that's your goal of tolerance then it's the wrong tool for the job.

It's like saying the goal of riding this bike is to get across the country as quickly as possible. That may indeed be your goal, but you should consider using a car or a plane instead, as the bike isn't so great at traveling quickly.

Allowing fascists to organize and such is tolerant. One may be understandably opposed to those things, but that's the reason to own intolerance.

YES! Throw tolerance in the fire! It's not what you're really after, so why insist on claiming to be tolerant here?

@leswarden The US and Israeli systems are so different in their designs that the two situations aren't really comparable.

And in fact that was part of Netanyahu's complaint, as he pushed for a court that was a bit more law based in the absence of a strong constitutional framework.

The US constitutional framework, and its defining of the role of the SCOTUS, is exactly the distinguishing factor at the heart of the whole argument, and the one involving Trump as well.

@Morning1

@leswarden The problem is, since the Supreme Court is a body of law it can't let considerations like that influence its rulings.

Anyway, the more important point is that it really doesn't matter if Trump wants to be a dictator. The US system simply doesn't give presidents that option.

He can want it all he wants, but it says useful as wanting to flap your arms and fly around the room.

It's just a moot point.

@thisismissem but it sounds like they aren't living up to the plan, then.

If Australia is transferring people to places with abuses and crimes then it's not transferring them to safe third countries.

Maybe the better argument is that the plan may sound good but maybe it's not practically workable. There's no sense even discussing whether it's a good plan or not if it can't actually be implemented, and that can be the real objection to it.

@Teri_Kanefield It seems a bit problematic to equate sports with prosecution.

The ability for governments to punish and even harass people, all too often innocent people, is quite a bit different from watching two teams play some game on the field.

I'd say there's a pretty strong moral argument that we shouldn't be quick to cheer on prosecutors in general just because they may be pretty good at getting people punished.

@geekyonion More critically, prosecutors have the leeway to pick and choose cases based on basically any reasoning or motivation they would like, for example as response to political winds even if they know the case is weak or even outright false.

That's a huge part of the system, that the courts are independent of the prosecutor because we don't rely on prosecutors to only prosecute fairly and effectively.

To be sure, part of the picture is that if a prosecutor is doing the wrong thing they can be disciplined for that, but even there the definition of the wrong thing isn't so clear as just win/loss ratios. It ends up being subjective and political.

So in the end yes, prosecutors have a lot of leeway, and they may consider all sorts of factors ranging from the strength of the case through the expense of the prosecution through the chances of being disciplined for how they approach the case after the fact.

@Teri_Kanefield

@theothersimo that line of argument always struck me as pretty flawed, not because it's a paradox, but because it's logically contradictory.

Yes, a tolerant person tolerates.

No, there's no particular reason to pursue the contradiction for the sake of some reciprocity condition.

Instead it sounds like accepting a weaker claim for the sake of pursuing bias confirmation.

In other words, I would say that if you believe reciprocity is so important then let's just be honest and flat out say you are giving up tolerance for the sake of that goal.

@dangoodin

@ilovecomputers I think if they want a flat bottom like that, I don't see the point of using a wok in the first place.

Seems like they might as well just use a normal saute pan.

Still an interesting video.

@shayz0rz I just think it means she is off in her own little world, so there's no point asking her about it, because anything she might say is just part of some fantasy at best.

@shayz0rz but my point is that I don't know what party she is with anymore.

She's pretty much cast out of the Republican party so when you talk about how her party got here, I don't think she has a party at this point, not in any practical way.

Her story is really more about her personally, the choices she made, how she got where she is today, rejected by pretty much any political base that she might otherwise have.

It seems like pretty much everybody has told her she can fuck all the way off forever, and she earned that.

@shayz0rz keep in mind that mainstream Republicans and conservatives and right wingers reject Liz Cheney as one of them.

@Grandalf@aus.social Well not quite.

SCOTUS can basically do anything it wants--such is the nature of an independent judiciary--but most importantly in this case the Court is free to go through common procedure of saying that appellate courts should first rule and then maybe the Supreme Court will review the appellate court rulings.

That would actually be the normal course of business so it is definitely on the table.

But it also doesn't make a president a king to say that they are immune from future prosecution.

Presidents are still subject to impeachment and removal from office, which a king is certainly not, and presidents still have to deal with the other two branches of government.

They are not kings regardless of what the Supreme Court might say here.

The US government was specifically set up with checks against that kind of thing, and it's just not an option on the table. It does no good to sensationalize this legal dispute.

Really it only plays into Trump's hands as his supporters love this stuff.

@GottaLaff

@Kozmo Well that's not quite the process.

The court basically agreed to consider whether to agree to consider the question.

After it hears arguments it still might not agree to consider the question.

But to be clear, the reason sitting presidents are immune from legal action is because the legal action would be done in their own names so it would be a president charging himself, with a giant obvious conflict of interest.

That isn't to explained nearly often enough.

@wjmaggos Well that's simply not true. @dangoodin

@dangoodin I guess you could go on and on but if those are the best arguments you have, they're not really making your case.

You're generally describing the site taking a neutral approach to content, which is arguably anti-fascist.

You're complaining that the site isn't imposing its values, isn't dictating and strongarming, and that just doesn't jive with your claim that there's fascist things going on.

You can stand by your description all you want, but your argument undermines your claim.

@brian Well do you know any people living in Texas? You could ask them.

I know a bunch, and they are pretty happy there. That's why they continue to live there.

@1dalm I mean yes, that is the general concept of an independent Supreme Court.

@Teri_Kanefield

@lispi314

Ha, Well that just gives me a shudder picturing having to listen to my parents complain about, And would you believe they didn't even include the cord?!

@shoq

@BathysphereHat bingo @irenes@mastodon.social

@johnlogic I couldn't see past the paywall but based on the glimpse I got I found this related account of the issue:

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/texas-gop-no-more-critical-thinking-in-schools/2012/06