Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

LightNews

Sotek

@sotekprime.bsky.social

30 followers 40 following 450 posts

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 1m

Pretty similar! Not as many documents, actually more explicit about giving them to people who aren't authorized to see them vs merely having them unsafely, not nearly as explicit on retention - a lot of what's charged is about "information" vs documents that were explicitly marked as classified.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 1h

very true.

and I don't mean to defend them, because they fucking suck and are provoking problems for the sake of provoking problems.
but they are likely to win this case and make him pay an entire, like, two or three digits of money in fines, clearly worth the time and effort put into the case.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 1h

Right, this is the misdemeanor charges. He absolutely didn't do a felony (because, you know... sandwich. not a deadly weapon) but uh kinda does look like he did a misdemeanor.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 1h

idk, I think any cop you throw a sandwich at is going to charge you for misdemeanor pissing-them-off.

Maybe they shouldn't be able to but that's not exactly a wild erosion. The attempt to upcharge to a felony is what was insane and that got rightfully slapped down.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 18h

The actual logic of TvUS was not written to convince, it was written as an exercise of naked power, so at least it will be easy precedent to overturn once the real logic ("A majority of the Supreme Court are Fox News Sycophants") is no longer true...

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 1d

on twitter they're honestly just bots. but people are easily fooled by inflated numbers :(

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 1d

If you're protesting during the day, the police are less likely to get up to shenanigans, fwiw. Harder for them to justify causing trouble in broad daylight.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 1d

Literally just an American flag, tbh.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 1d

So, someone needs to leak the group chat he's in that looks like this, right?

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 2d

There are people in this world with enough money to hire a hundred thousand people for actions for a single day.

But there is no way, no universe, where they could do so SECRETLY, without broadly advertising the fact they are so hiring.

Which is what makes this childish.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 3d

These types of propagandists are perfectly willing to say true things if true things are helpful to them, yes.

(I do not think that's what happened here, given the circumstances, but I could be surprised.)

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 4d

The FAA has a lot to say about it. TL;DR: shining a laser pointer at an aircraft is a federal crime with a potential five-year jail sentence. Do not do it.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 4d

So like an eighth? Sure, makes sense. Less than I was saying but same ballpark - enough that cranks can't do it, few enough that a minority of the opposition can get it done.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 4d

Nah, that's a bad model. The government loses *too* when they work together to bad ends, and when they work together to good ends, the people and the government both win. The government is a tool of the people when all is well, and only a foe when things are failing.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 4d

I'm not either but my understanding is that if the case can start elsewhere they can force it to (and that can happen even with original jurisdiction) but if not they'll have to hear it.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 4d

You forgot to delete your earlier post about vaccines being a bad example before you posted this one, so yeah, you did set up for a pretty snappy comeback that he kinda whiffed.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 4d

Depends on if it starts at them or not - if it starts in DC district court then I think no, they can just say "the district court ruling stands" and that's fine. If it starts at them, no, they have to hear it. Dunno which way is better, tbh. (But a district court ruling would be nationwide)

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 4d

I think it's still hotpatchable. I have ideas for other bigger changes but like... Why bother taking about them, right? Expanding SCOTUS once the current fever breaks is at least in the universe of possible without a civil war first.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 4d

States already have standing a lot of the time, idk if they need more? I'd go for catchall standing on Congress and then maybe explicit instances for the states, but still actually restrict them to concrete cases and controversies.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 4d

But at least they'd be forced to say that instead of playing the game of giving him wins without ruling on the merits, and maybe they wouldn't go that far?? One can hope.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 4d

In general and in absolute? No, obviously. But some systems are more or less resistant. If a minority of Congresspeople can sue, then there will almost always be suits against unconstitutional behavior - the problem then lies in SCOTUS who can just say "actually, Trump is a king because fuck you"

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 4d

Yeah, but that's a big difference in the system with knock-on effects. It's easier to add a body with statutory standing (or grant it to any large-enough group of Congresspeople).

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 4d

(my answer is "allow any group of at least 20 Senators or 100 Representatives explicit standing to challenge the constitutionality of government actions".)

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 4d

Generally with independent bodies that can bring the suit or a judiciary that can evaluate it sua sponte. Given our case-or-controversy rules, granting the power to a body would make sense, and then it's a question of how to structure that body to avoid the Federalist Society capturing it, too.

Sotek @sotekprime.bsky.social · 4d

Yep, and that's also a problem! But at least it is not literally a million suits, which, uh. If people could individually sue the government for generalized unconstitutionality might actually happen - all you'd need is a third of a percent of the country to object strongly enough...