TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)

This is from snippets of Justice Sotomayer’s disent I found here.

Sotomayor said that the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, invents “an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.” Their ruling, she went on, makes three moves that she said “completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability.” Sotomayor said the court creates absolute immunity for the president’s exercise of “core constitutional powers,” creates “expansive immunity for all ‘official acts,’” and “declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him.”

Yes, under the constitution, which the Court just put the President above. If the President might be immune then anything the President did is not admissible in court now. So how does the Senate even hold a trial, let alone convict a President when they cannot enter any evidence now?

This decision is written in a bad faith way to get Trump out of being tried, and with the knowledge that Biden will not exploit it and the hope that Trump wins and becomes our new king. The “conservative” Justices can get their “gratuity” and retire living out the rest of their lives taken care of.

The assassination of political rivals by Seal Team 6 is what Trump’s lawyer argued before the Supreme Court. They argued that anything the President orders is an official act, and immunity must apply to it (unless in their bad faith reading of the constitution he was impeached AND convicted by the Senate). But the court also said that if a President is immune, then by this new ruling the Presidents actions cannot be used in court, aka President is above the law without any check in place.

I think the intent of this ruling, and certainly the current interpretation is that anything anywhere in the scope of POTUS responsibilities is now above the law. So Trump can, and is going to argue that his insurrection was within his scope of protecting elections and therefore he has full immunity. He has also filed paperwork trying to have his election interference felony convictions overturned based on yesterday’s ruling. They have made POTUS a king at the discretion of the court, instead of the beholden to the constitution.

If a POTUS is immune can they be impeached? Or maybe impeached but not removed? As typically if one is immune it means they cannot be charged. If one cannot be charged how can they be impeached/removed?

Lots of feels …

The dim lights in that crowded room

They came alive just as soon as

I saw you

As I saw you

What crawls out of a heart like this

Boarded up I’ve laid my bricks

But it’s all coming down

It’s all coming down

And though tomorrow scares the life from me sometimes

And though I know what sorrow means in my bones

And though the rain will always pour

I would rather feel it all than sleep anymore

I’d rather feel it all than sleep anymore

• Dim Lights by Orebolo

I think I have this same issue with red/pink and when a color is one or the other in that in-between area. I also do this with blue and green as well, though I feel less so than pink/red. I also have done colorblindness tests myself and do not test as colorblind (either variety).

Or his CFO, who is currently serving his 2nd sentence in Rikers to protect “the boss”.

Pushing your tongue to the roof of your mouth can also stop “brain freeze” from cold foods/drinks.

Orebolo - 3 guys playing acoustic perfection.

Goose - same 3 guys from Orebolo, but with the rest of the band, non-acoustic, and some good jams.

I think this being an election year in the US also makes the whole world more wacky. It will decide if the world gets one more dictator or not, and one that would have a massive military at his disposal.

500/500 but average 530+ both ways for $50/month. Up to 5 gigabit is available in my area.

EDIT - In the US the FCC just upped what is considered “broadband” to 100/20 , which still seems sad for upload, but at least moving in the right direction. It was an awful 25/3 before.

I’m in no way “successful”, but just wanted to say that you need to stop comparing yourself with others, it’ll lead you in an endless circle. You also don’t sound like a failure to me, relationships are hard, and having the trifecta of ADHD/Autism/Trauma does not make things easy. We need to work harder for everything and the world is designed for neurotypicals, so stop beating yourself up for being above average when you’re working harder than most you’re probably envious of.

It also might not be a bad idea to talk to someone about your trauma, and how it’s apparently impacting your view of yourself.

Mastodon is part of the fediverse though, and is open and a nonprofit. Bluesky is neither of those things, and that is why it’s different.

And giving the resources from a free and open network to a for-profit corporation is both dumb and rude IMHO.

I don’t think the argument is even about privacy, but giving away someone else’s (or in this case potentially a whole network of people’s content), and admins resources in order to drive some corporate profits they aren’t even getting a share of. If someone needs to chat with someone on Bluesky that bad then they should just make an account, not undermine a whole network so they can be lazy.

What has people upset is that the “service” is opt-out instead of opt-in, and one someone else is making for server admins without warning. If this person wanted to run a server and give their own content to the corporate overlords that is their choice, but making something to give others content away without their consent doesn’t sit well with a lot of people.

Yes, but consuming data and using someone else’s data for profit are 2 different things. Don’t believe me, start reposting a large news websites data verbatim with AdSense on it and see how quickly the cease and desist comes.

Open yes, but Bluesky is not open, they are after free content to make the corporate investors a return at all costs. If a non-profit wants to use my server to add content to their platform, I have no issue with that. But a for-profit can pay me for content if they want it, I don’t work for them or use their platform.

The same argument could be used for copyright itself, and why we have non-commercial licenses for things. Just because you are giving something away as free (as in beer), doesn’t mean that some for-profit should be able to just use it to drive up their user base and make the corp more money. I think content creators, or at the very least in the fediverse - server owners, should be able to limit what corporations can suck up to further corporate profits at the expense of the fediverse.

If you want to run a server and donate your resources to make a for-profit corp money, that is your right, but to tell everyone that they should have no control of their content is unacceptable to me.

Going out on a limb, but the for profit corporation being able to suck up your posts is probably what has many upset. I personally would block such a service as I don’t see these for-profit corporations as part of the fediverse, but as leeches out to Extend, Embrace, Extinguish.