volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@wiseguyeddie again, read the ruling.

As Kennedy pointed out in the ruling, it had nothing to do with whether Elon Musk could donate that money. In fact, part of the reason they came down in that direction was to enable the rest of us to counter Elon Musk.

CU had nothing to do with Elon Musk giving $45 million to Trump. That wasn't in any way related to the question before the court.

What was before the court was whether you and me could pool our money to speak out in opposition to him.

Again, Kennedy spelled this out very very clearly in the ruling. He took his time to explain to us exactly what this ruling was going to do.

That somebody is misinforming you as to what was in the ruling isn't the fault of the Supreme Court, it's a matter of, stop trusting whoever is lying to you and telling you things that run exactly opposite to what was actually in the ruling, that you can read for yourself.

@PrivacyDigest No it's the exact opposite.

When Congress passes cyber security laws the Supreme Court ruling says that whoever is president has to obey them.

It reinforces the instruction to obey congressional direction in cases like cyber security

@kagan people miss that there cannot be an enforceable code of ethics because we value an independent judiciary.

To regulate the judicial branch is to cross the line between separations of power. It cannot happen under the US system of government.

And honestly, that's a good thing.

The Supreme Court needs to be judged on its rulings, not its ethics. If the rulings are good it doesn't matter where they come from. If the rulings are bad it doesn't matter where they come from.

@wiseguyeddie Read the citizens united ruling for yourself. In the ruling Kennedy goes out of his way to say the exact opposite.

Someone's lying to you.

@wiseguyeddie If you look at this term the Supreme Court has been ruling the exact opposite of what you're describing, cracking down on the executive branch's ability to ignore the law, writing it in, insisting that the president must defer to Congress.

Ruling after ruling from the Supreme Court this term goes in the exact opposite direction from what you're describing.

Usher in a fascist regime? That doesn't vibe with the Supreme Court saying no, the president can't just prosecute without legal authority and can't issue edicts that Congress hasn't approved of.

So I don't know who you're listening to, but whoever it is, they're lying to you. Stop listening to them. They are misleading you.

@wiseguyeddie what are you talking about?

No, the court didn't effectively make the presidency a monarchy, nor could it have, it doesn't have that authority.

Somebody is misinforming you and you should stop listening to those people.

@wiseguyeddie I'm asking about your position. What specifically makes you hold your position?

This isn't about me, I'm asking about your perspective regardless of mine.

@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.