volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@ChemicalEyeGuy where did you get the impression that was a general description of Trump supporters?

@Twitter_expat@mastodon.world well, I think it's critical to realize that Trump was a symptom of problems, not the cause.

American democracy elected him because people felt (rightly or wrongly) that the system was so failing them.

We need to work on fixing our institutions. All the focus on Trump instead of underlying problems gets the situation backward and risks making it worse.

Trump didn't come and wreck the system. The wrecked system lead to Trump. We need to fix it.

@kagan careful: some of those execs might be looking for cover, excuses not to go the EV direction with their business.

The auto execs might be delighted to use him to this end.

@Nonilex always keep in mind that Trump does this kind of thing as engagement with the crowd that supports him, as SO MANY in the country have been fed the stories from those sycophants.

It's not that Trump's driving a conversation or whatever. It's that he sees how the winds of his political side are blowing and joins in.

It's his SOP. He's a follower, and this is just him following.

@ChemicalEyeGuy it's more that they recognize that those stats taken out of context are misleading.

I mean, it's not like they have everything (or much) right, but I think some of them at least recognize proper criticisms of the other team when it fits their cognitive biases.

@sj_zero yeah, I think part of what you're seeing is that different judges/justices use oral arguments for different purposes. As each has different goals with their exchanges, it makes things a little unpredictable.

Briefly, for example, while one justice might use oral arguments to voice the heart of the matter, another might use the time to help a speaker make the very best case they can, even though it's probably wrong, to show that the losing side had every chance--they weren't ignored.

The latter use might make the losing side sound much stronger that it really was, if you see what I'm saying.

@DoesntExist@mastodon.social where did I say everything was OK?

It's more that if you want to address problems then you have to understand the problem to find a solution. It does no good to run into a wall with a solution to either the wrong problem or just one that doesn't fit.

For example, I have HUGE issues with how prosecutors have handled these cases, and I wish they'd be held accountable for their failures to get this done, but too often they're ducking accountability because people are too distracted chasing these shadows of legal procedure.

When prosecutors open themselves up to problems with legal procedure, it's time to blame the prosecutor, not the procedure. They should have known the rules.

@elan

@sj_zero well, I just try to emphasize that in most cases SCOTUS is sitting as a court of appeals, so it's naturally judging lower courts more than the individual people named.

@KimPerales never overlook the possibility that maybe the decisions just happened to be correct on their own bases?

So many are so mislead about what each of those decisions actually said, though they're all in the public record.

Sometimes it's not a conspiracy. Sometimes the ruling is simply the one required by the case before the court.

@ginaintheburg but that's how the US works: different states have wide latitude to design their procedures in whatever way best suits their populations and communities.

Heck, if FL doesn't have much common sense, it only makes sense that their government would reflect that :)

SCOTUS didn't really have jurisdiction in a case like this. It was right for them to stay out of it, since there weren't really federal issues at hand.

@DoesntExist@mastodon.social those claims were debunked...

@elan right, but there's a fundamental principle in US government that we have checks and balances to protect against officials who are lacking in objectivity.

If the judge is the worst, most biased, most corrupt judge ever, well, that's why there are procedures to address and mitigate such things.

The US system doesn't leave grant such sweeping power to any individuals. There are always checks in place specifically because we don't want corrupt people to have such authority.

@Hyolobrika to give a taste of the case, on appeal to the DC Circuit, that court issued a ruling with a sweeping claim rejecting the idea that civil immunity can be analogized to criminal immunity ever.

Not just about Trump or accusations about Trump, but ever.

So the question now is whether the DC circuit went too far, and people wondering why justices didn't focus on Trump don't seem to understand that procedural history.

This case doesn't let Trump off of any hooks. It just reviews whether the DC Circuit misread the rules, regardless of Trump.
@2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da @sj_zero

@elan That's not how the US system works, though. There are checks on judges to make sure they don't just make a mess of things.

Nothing like this is to just one judge. That would be a stupid thing to do, so the US doesn't do it.

@Hyolobrika

The actual argument before the Supreme Court is extremely tame, but there's so much sensational misinformation circulating out there.

It is simply this: a former president cannot be held criminally responsible for OFFICIAL and LEGAL actions he undertook while in office.

That's right, it's saying you can't hold someone criminally liable if they didn't break the law, and this is specifically wrt a former president.

That should be obvious, right? So why are we talking about it? Meh, technical legal procedural issues triggered it.

@2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da @sj_zero

@Hyolobrika Trump's own team rejected that claim in oral arguments, among other places.

No serious person can believe that nothing a president does is illegal.

@2cdff18bbefae63a191eca63e3ee7e5c2bb35430bcfd5ab436a4a358f95696da @sj_zero

@elan completely different system.

In the US, you have these different systems of courts.

Anyway, well look in on it. Looks like the prosecutors have made a mess of it.

@ginaintheburg who said anything about validity?

I'm talking about practicality and also justice.

Maybe I can't control whether an anvil falling on my head is going to harm me, but we can absolutely control whether crossing the street is going to get us thrown in jail.

@realcaseyrollins I just found this really funny :)