volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@vigilantfox meh, The reason this claim fails is because courts wouldn't have moved fast enough even if a challenger was in the right to block the vaccines.

So no, they didn't have to destroy the drugs for this reason.

Really it was just all politics, trying to bash Trump and many Republicans and other groups that were seen as a challenge.

It had nothing to do with money. It had to do with scoring political points and winning elections.

@Downshift The reason it is an empty threat is because there is no such authority to impose what they are reportedly calling for.

It's like, if I have a concrete plan to visit Europe this summer by flapping my arms and flying my way across the ocean, that still doesn't mean it's possible.

@Incognitim No, the two situations are extremely different, and the two courts operate in different ways, with different procedures, and just generally, the two situations are apples and oranges.

Just to name one example, in the case of Cannon they are still moving forward with court processes, there is still argument to be made and briefing to be done. But at the Supreme Court all of that homework is already in.

The case before Cannon hasn't been submitted, while the case before the Supreme Court has.

@Lyle It's not an all or nothing question, though. It's also about how much of society's resources should be allocated in that direction given lower marginal benefits the farther you go.

So it's not just whether disaster prevention is acceptable, but whether any particular program has benefits worth the costs.

@mreader the article goes off the rails right from its headline.

Take the line, "Many of the justices seemed uninterested in addressing the facts of Trump’s case," and the response is YES EMPHATICALLY SO! Because that's not what the court was there to judge, and didn't have the authority to judge anyway.

The Court was sitting as a appeals court judging a particular question brought before it, and the question had absolutely nothing to do with the facts of Trump's case.

Really, this is a misunderstanding in the general public of how US courts work and the function of the Supreme Court.

This article is based on the premise that the Court is something that it's not.

@david1 right, it wouldn't be up to the courts to intervene in such a case. That's not how US courts work, as Trump found out when he tried to go that route.

It would primarily be up to our elected congresspeople to notice the invalid ballots.

@aspensmonster@octodon.social money isn't speech and corporations aren't people.

So many misunderstand US law and misrepresent what courts have said on that count.

@kshernandez right, folks need to be looking for solutions through democratic processes, making arguments that compel the public at large, instead of looking to courts to impose changes they want to see, that the courts don't really have authority to impose anyway.

People get really off track reaching for the court like that.

@timo21 it's not a glitch, though.

SCOTUS is sitting as a court of appeals in those two cases, so this is simply the process that such courts work through.

Prosecutors didn't have to go down this route, but they did, and so here we are.

@Nonilex

@Free_Press I mean, Republicans reject her, so it's hard to call it their clown show.

Without Democrats threatening to vote in support of the extremists they'd be laughed out of the room immediately.

@upstreamism what is Lessig going on about now?

That wasn't left obscure at all in the oral argument. It was a focus of justices' attention!

Lessig is a clown.

@dougiec3 no?

If you have an actual argument against something laid out in the logic behind a ruling, then present it.

Otherwise you're just falling into conspiracy theory here.

@maeve That'a not how the Supreme Court works, though, in the US system of government.

SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to support or not support Idaho in a case like this.

It just runs contrary to basic civics.

@JaniceOCG @newsopinionsandviews

What in the world are you talking about?

@x_minus_t@mstdn.social that was debunked pretty much immediately.

Biden's doing nobody any favors by dredging it up again now.

@atomicpoet the federal side is pretty straightforward: it's the executive branch that runs the jails and implements sentences, and since Trump would be given charge of the executive branch, he'd get to decide for himself how to handle his conviction.

Yes, he could pardon himself, or just ignore the ruling completely.

He could also be impeached and removed from office if our elected congresspeople decide it's just too silly a situation.

The state situation is more complicated since it would be a state executive running the jail and implementing the sentence.

The president can't directly interfere with that, BUT there's a solid argument that since the feds have supremacy over the states, a state can't interfere in the federal government by imprisoning the head of the federal government.

The sentence might be required to be delayed until he's out of office.

@_ good news: they can't overturn EMTALA.

That's not what the Supreme Court does; it doesn't have that authority even if it wanted to.

@Koochulainn indeed, and that is a critical objection, so it's worth identifying the objection clearly so it can be addressed.

But no, I interpreted the OP as looking into what people would do with the money after they receive it, which is certainly something many, many folks concern themselves with.

You know the old phrase, "They'll just use it to buy drugs"? That's the sort of objection I thought the OP was referring to.

@scottsantens

@niclas well that's obviously false.

@freemo @hornblower

@farbel the problem is that we disagree about what the city is doing.

How can we agree on a moral judgment about what the city is doing if we don't agree about what that is?

Personally, I'm actually not interested in moralizing about how a distant city manages its own property. I'm not involved in that process, nor is it really any of my business.

I AM interested in the misinformation regarding the Supreme Court going around that impacts the whole country, though.

As a general rule, though, I'll say I support the democratic processes that lead to city management policies.