They actually sent it back to a lower court to classify the charges.

Let’s say my name is Jerry. I’m a little short but not a lot. My work hired another dude named Jerry and he was absolutely massive. At least 400 lbs. So he became big Jerry and I became little Jerry. I attempted to just be Jerry but they were having none of that.

They claimed that the government was focusing on this one issue when really it was a small part of a much larger legislation. Whether it’s good or bad is a separate judgement.

This was part of an overall package including aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan.

Personally, I just find it really disappointing. This Tik Tok issue could have been an opportunity to improve privacy and reduce data collection across the board. Instead, it’s a surgical strike in order to not disrupt American tech companies doing the same thing.

What will happen is that Bytedance will sell the US Tik Tok to an American VC firm and it will continue data hoarding as before. This time, the US government will be getting the data instead of the CCP. I’d rather nobody got it.

When I worked in a factory, all the old country maintenance guys and techs were on tik Tok during their breaks.

You good bro?

IANAL, but it doesn’t seem like this is a big deal. DOJ wanted to know if the defense was going to use a particular defense. The judge didn’t compel the defense to disclose their defensive strategy. Maybe a lawyer can provide some insight but this seems like a non story.

:wave2:speak for yourself

I’m a Wikipedia addict but I’m not complaining

the pardons were meant to help thousands overcome obstacles to renting a home or finding a job.

I thought pardons don’t erase a conviction. They just erase the sentence. Wouldn’t the conviction still show up in a background search?

I almost exclusively use the app called Transit. It uses OSM data and shows live tracking for buses and trains (at least it does in my city). It’s good for figuring other options like walking, cycling, bike share.

the Biden impeachment… zero evidence, no specific crime identified.

Biden has not been impeached. There is an upcoming inquiry which is tasked with investigating Biden’s potential business dealings with foreign nations. The purpose is to gather evidence and identify crime if appropriate. Hot take: if there is evidence of a crime, he should be impeached. I think the inquiry is largely political but if they do find evidence of a crime, it should be publicly known.

Overall, I don’t think we should be fighting fire with fire. Then we’re just sinking to their level. If my political opponent is doing illegal things, let them stand trial. Trump has a ton of indictments meant to bring about justice. I just think the legal process is too slow for the left to feel satisfied right now. Give it time.

The take is nuts. The amendment clearly applies to all state and federal politicians, judges, and beurocracts. It seems silly that it wouldn’t apply to the highest position as well, even if a literal interpretation wouldn’t include the president. The court agreed with that interpretation.

During the civil war, the president was Lincoln. Obviously he’s not involved in insurrection. As a result, the amendment didn’t clearly include the president. After the civil war, the government officials of the Confederacy was a matter of public record. So you obviously didn’t require them all to stand trial before barring them from office. The amendment was written to keep confederate officials from regaining power. It was general enough to include any insurrection. Now we’re in territory the amendment wasn’t directly written for so it makes sense to interpret it with the original intent in mind. The standard for insurrection isn’t clearly defined so the courts are exercising their ability to interpret it. If they didn’t have this ability, any gun control legislation would require an amendment.

In all of the indictments Trump has received relating to the election, he hasn’t been indicted for insurrection. Which tells me the prosecutors don’t feel they can prove it in a criminal court. I believe even Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Rule of law should trump political ideals.

I mentioned in another comment but I think conviction should be the bar. During reconstruction, we bypassed due process on this because it obviously applied to anybody holding office in one of the seceding states. Now that we’re in territory the amendment wasn’t directly written for, it’s appropriate to review the interpretation.

One of the arguments of the defense was that the specific wording of the amendment meant it didn’t apply to the President. If we go with the specific wording of the amendment, we get pretty far from the intended effect of the amendment. The court agreed that the amendment applied to the president despite some discrepancies, but disagreed on whether due process would be violated by limiting the ballot.

For sure they presented and debated evidence about whether Trump actually participated in an insurrection, and to what extent. But this court wasn’t deciding whether Trump is guilty of a crime. It was deciding if the state can limit Trump’s ability to appear on the ballot. A criminal conviction would require a trial and a focused scope. This is not the due process for that conviction.

Reposting my comment from another thread. Remember to bee nice:

Personally, I don’t think Trump should be on any ballot because he has a history of undermining democracy. It’s self-defeating for a democracy to allow non-democratic actors to participate.

That said, I also agree with the dissenting opinion. Without a conviction of insurrection, a court shouldn’t be able to limit democratic participation. That would be denying a person due process. I suspect the supreme court will see it that way too.

If you disagree with me, just imagine how this precedent could be used by the right against a left-leaning candidate. If democracy is limited without a conviction of insurrection, you’ll see this applied to candidates on very shaky grounds.

Why do they want to step into what we are doing here?

I think there’s a much simpler explanation. Elon’s actions are causing users to want to leave the platform. Meta wants to pounce on this opportunity. ActivityPub is an established, open source protocol that allows Meta to quickly spin up a Twitter competitor. The federated nature means that Meta can reduce regulatory risk. At the same time, they can lobby for increased scrutiny of Twitter since it isn’t interroperable like Threads.

I have no idea if this is actually how Meta is strategizing. But what I definitely know is that Meta absolutely doesn’t consider federated social media a threat. They aren’t trying to squash us. They’re aimed at Twitter. If they make some change that degrades the experience for us, absolutely we should consider defederation. Until then, let’s try to make some converts out of Threads users.

I’ll bet a 10mm socket was in there. If so, it doomed the rest of the bag and NASA should have known better.

That probably would’ve been true even if they did follow through.