volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@opethminded what's to reconsider is that Biden is one of the few people that even stands a chance to lose to Trump. So the party might as well nominate someone who would definitely win, and as a side note I guess, be a better president.
@NewsDesk

@FantasticalEconomics Well the argument is that the stated goal of bringing in women involves doing whatever is needed to bring in those women, even if it means lowering standards to make it happen.

It's a reasonable argument.

@PariaSansPortefeuille I think that gets it backwards.

Vance is representing Trump moving more toward the center and away from right-wing trumpism.

@wiseguyeddie what specifically are you talking about?

@ThomHartmann

@mekkaokereke maybe no one else remembers it because we didn't pay attention to it because we knew they were just clowns?

@unlucio I was kind of looking for specifics, not your general outlook.

Specifically, what makes you think that?

@ArenaCops she didn't rely on the advice from justices. The issue has been explored pretty carefully over the years, and it was briefed directly to her, and she discussed it with council for both sides that were before her court.

To say she relied on advice from justices is to be ignorant of what actually happened in this case.

So I don't know who you heard that from, but they're telling you wrong.

@Free_Press

@unlucio Why do you doubt it?

If you've been keeping up with her Supreme Court writings she is often really out to lunch, she gets a whole lot backwards, so if you've been keeping up, you can pretty much assume that's the way she is going.

She's kind of dumb.

Either way, her position was rejected by the court. So I don't know why you would go for the rejected position as some sort of authority on what's going on. No it's the exact opposite.

@unlucio Why do you doubt it?

If you've been keeping up with her Supreme Court writings she is often really out to lunch, she gets a whole lot backwards, so if you've been keeping up, you can pretty much assume that's the way she is going.

She's kind of dumb.

Either way, her position was rejected by the court. So I don't know why you would go for the rejected position as some sort of authority on what's going on. No it's the exact opposite.

@Methylcobalamin what are you trying to say?

Trump is an idiot who doesn't know how the world works, so that he would endorse Heritage in the past and maybe rebuke them now just doubles down on that whole ball of people who don't know how any of this works.

@hszakher you're missing the democracy part, though.

The reason Trump is allowed to run for office isn't because of legalities and good intentions but because a lot of voters want to vote for him.

If the public wants to elect a felon, well, they get the government they voted for.

@Incognitim right, and the whole issue here is that Smith was not acting as a subordinate.

If Smith was subordinate, then this problem wouldn't have arisen. He would simply have acted out the AG's orders.

But here it was emphasized that he was acting independently, which changed the legal basis of his office.

@dougiec3 no, not at all.

It's been pointed out for months that Smith was improperly appointed, and if anything, it was Thomas that got the idea from Cannon.

But more likely, they simply both knew about this problem with the prosecution because it was common knowledge. There's always been this dispute about the Smith since his role was announced.

@maeve I mean, it's not stunning to anyone who watched Biden's administration make this error back when Smith's role was announced.

Since then it's just been a question of how the courts were going to deal with that choice.

And now we see that Biden's not above the law.

@AndiPopp none of that is true, though.

Once the EC chose the next president--once there was a transition of power to happen--Trump transferred power peacefully.

SCOTUS has nothing to do with that.

If anything, it's misinformation like that which you're spreading that promotes this violence.

@TCatInReality

Keep in mind that the statement is purely about providing protections. Critically, notice that it doesn't address bad behavior.

Basically, a judge who's misbehaving nullifies the line. It doesn't mean he gets removed, it only means he loses the protection from removal.

Even if the line is nullified, the president still has no authority to cite to actually remove a justice.

Impeachment is the one and only authority available, and that's for good reason as it leaves it up to the representatives of the people to shape our government, not to the unilateral preferences of a president.

@DemocracyMattersALot

@michael_martinez

Go a step deeper. What is the Trust Fund?

By law, the Managing Trustee must invest money collected into the Trust Fund into obligations of the US, which is to say, transfer it to the US Treasury.

To say that Trust Funds may not be used for budgeting doesn't change the use of the cash received by the Treasury after the Trust Fund purchases those obligations.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/401

@unlucio the key is that SCOTUS didn't declare POTUS immune from everything.

In fact, the ruling went out of its way to talk about holding officials accountable and continuing to prosecute them.

A lot of people are being confused by a lot of reporting that tells the story exactly backwards.

@interfluidity

If the maliciousness is so discrete as to be so undetectable, then this ruling doesn't really expand anything: if supposed illegality is so gossamer then prosecution over prosecution wouldn't be in the cards in either case.

Certainly it wouldn't apply to the end of the world, torches everywhere images that people are trying to dream up.

In the end, though, if law authorizes malicious prosecution, then we really need to fix the law that's granting that option in the first place as it's granting the president too much authority.

Or, if there is no such law, then again, this ruling doesn't apply.
@realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @Hyolobrika