volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@Orijewnal No, the trial hasn't been canceled indefinitely, it's just that the trial date that was set set turned out to be overly optimistic, and there's a lot more work to be done to prosecutor the guy before they can go to a jury.

The trial is absolutely not canceled. In fact they are continuing to work quite hard to bring it forward.

@Geoffberner keep in mind there was some, you know, voting that went on in those elections...

Far too often people seem to forget that at the core of voting are voters.

@Edelruth SCOTUS doesn't really have authority to include that in their immunity deliberations.

The question before them is whether the claimed immunity exists regardless of whether it's a good idea or not.

It's key to the democratic processes of the US government that the judicial branch doesn't override the people just because the judges think it's a bad idea.

@hopefulhumanizer @Nonya_Bidniss

@realcaseyrollins keep in mind that when talking about MTG bucking Trump it doesn't so much matter what the functional outcome is because she's not exactly working with a full deck of cards, so it's not even clear that she knows what moves would be purely symbolic in the first place.

When you listen to her public descriptions of her own actions, she really doesn't seem like she knows what her end goal is or how to get there or what the result of her actions will be.

@Kirk

@realcaseyrollins but she already did move to have him removed. She already filed the motion, even if she has now been talked down off the ledge by whatever Johnson negotiated with her.

That was one example where she broke from Trump.

@Kirk

@Incognitim Even with concurring opinions, leaving aside the opinion of the court, the concurring opinions get complicated as they address each other, so the shuffling of drafts and redrafts all to be prepared to release a stack of opinions with internal references, that's legitimately complicated.

It would be one thing if there was just a vote announced, but for a case with any complications, including purely perceived complications by a minority on the court, it just takes time, and that's unavoidable.

The immunity case is pretty complicated as the oral arguments indicated, even just noting that different members of the Court had competing visions of what they were even looking to rule on.

If they can't even agree about what they're supposed to decide, well that's a complication!

You say it's a well plowed field, but we're not even sure what field we're talking about 🙂

As for the optics of firing Garland, I think those optics would be straightforward if people better understood the way the federal government is designed, that it's up to Biden.

The optics are primarily bad to the extent that he is able to duck accountability for the actions of his underling.

@Incognitim "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

We must not let any president escape accountability for the actions of the executive branch. The buck stops at Biden, not Garland.

As per the Supreme Court, so much depends on the complexity of the cases and the complexity of getting all of the members onto the same page.

It's funny that there's a popular opinion that more people should be added to the Supreme Court, and I just end up thinking, if you think it's hard to herd those cats now, wait until you have to get agreement out of twice as many for a ruling to be issued!

@bibliolater Oh to clarify, what I was referring to was a study saying that there's a lot of generation happening with literally no transmission lines to bring the generation to the rest of the world.

It was part of a call for increased investment in energy grids so they could be physically connected to the renewable generation that is currently just going to waste.

@realcaseyrollins MTG and Trump have come down differently on a few issues lately.

I mean not that it matters, they're both morons.

@Kirk

@garyackerman Well it depends on the connection between the two.

@bibliolater I was recently hearing about the disconnect between amount of energy produced versus amount that could actually be transmitted over energy grids.

I wonder if this statistic measures the former and not the latter.

@feditest maybe it's good to focus on the real world implications of the incompatibilities one by one?

For example, will this lack of a header actually impact anybody in the real world? I don't know the answer.

@Incognitim meh, this is just how courts work.

If the prosecutor s needed to meet closer deadlines then they might have prosecuted differently. A lot of this is really based on what prosecutors ask the courts for, knowing that if you go to the court with a complicated ask, that's going to take more time to resolve.

Frankly, I think we need to hold Biden responsible for a lot of these timing issues, including sometimes the state prosecutions as the feds might not have acted as quickly as they need to to get things resolved even there.

@Kozmo this article overlooks just how weak the court rulings on abortion had become over the years. They were always on the chopping block, and they had already been pretty discredited over the decades.

That's really important because there's a difference between those weak rulings versus strong ones expressing our rights today.

@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.