Had the Supreme Court declned to hear the case, that would not have made Trump’s immunity claim go away or clear the way for him to be held accountable. It would have just settled the issue only for one case, the January 6th prosecution in the DC Federal District Court.
But it would not have been settled anywhere else outside of the DC Circuit, including in Florida where Trump has also raised the same immunity claim in his documents case.
“They could have just declined the case” is the overly simplistic but misleading version of Supreme Court law and practice being fed to laypersons by many celebrity television commentators who were rushed on air to breathlessly critique the Court’s grant of certiorari to Donald Trump’s presidential immunity petition.
But they’re not telling you the whole story.
Yes, the Court COULD have declined to take the case. But that’s only part of the story. Among the things the talking heads aren’t telling you is what would happen if the Court DIDN’T take the case.
I'm not arguing what to do with conservatives, I'm pointing out the authoritarian language being used here as hypocrisy.
You can't ever truly get rid of undemocratic elements of a society while remaining democratic, because the only way to do so is undemocratic.
In the fight against fascism we must preserve democracy. I want accountability for these people, but not through vigilante justice, or authoritarian government actions. Remember how terrible it was when Trump separated refugee families at the border and ICE intentionally didn't keep records to prevent families from being reunited later?
If we empower the government to do that sort of thing to undesirables, it could be used by fascists or otherwise authoritarian figures to punish those who disagree with them.
The parent post says:
Remember, conservative brains are literally abnormal. They have enlarged regions dealing with fear and disgust.
This reminds me strongly of the pseudoscience surrounding phrenology and how that was used to discriminate against minorities.
Furthermore, the post goes on to say:
They should be given special treatment, but not allowed to in charge of anything more complicated than a butter knife.
This sort of language leads straight into justifying discrimination based on physical attributes. Advocating for the removal of self determination from political groups should always be given massive side-eye.
These transphobes' ideologies need to be rejected on their merits, not by saying, as one of the replies says, "this needs to be brought up daily till our republican buddies realize they are becoming a sub class of underperformed human."
This is more than flirting with the language of eugenics.
Surely it's not a stretch to see how statements like "they should be given special treatment, but not allowed to [be] in charge of anything more complicated than a butter knife" leads straight into eugenics.
I hate to both-sides this, because the people covering up Nex's death are monsters, but discourse like this is nearly identical to the things the transphobes are saying.
We have to find solutions for these social problems that aren't authoritarian or lean into eugenics. In the case of trans rights, I think that's by appealing to peoples desire to have freedom of self expression.
That's the same thing that Nazis say about undesirables.
What you're advocating for is authoritarianism and eugenics.
I saw this thread on mastodon the other day griping about Kagi not understanding how inherently political tech is which doesn't fill me with confidence in their ability to proceed ethically: https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/111707573907442638
I suspect it's because of concerns about leaks and water damage.
That hasn't stopped numerous leaks from upstairs damaging my apartment, though.
A lot of apartment leases disallow bidets. I know mine does.