volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@Wileymiller If you're talking about the US system, you have that backwards.

The US system emphatically and actively is designed to keep that kind of authority away from the courts. We don't give the courts that authority to override democratic processes.

And so enforcing court orders is emphatically left to the Congress. We elect the people that we want to handle that enforcement.

This is a core part of separation of powers in the US system.

@ben any chance they're specifically mentioning you in their posts?

@cwarzel.bsky.social don't discount the possibility that they are, in fact, overreacting!

There actually is a ton of overreaction around, and part of the problem is that overreaction to one thing can mask more pressing problems elsewhere.

But that's an understandable thing, where a group of likeminded folks build up each others' perceptions, skewing them without a skeptical, balancing force.

@cwarzel.bsky.social of course.

This administration is extremely responsive to the sentimentality of its base, and this plays into it.

@JohannesReetz

Not much the US citizen can do? US citizens elected these congresspeople who are enabling the situation. Maybe US citizens have done enough!

But to be serious, if you don't like what's happening then work to oust your congresspeople. That's the way this works.

US citizens can at the least stop reelecting the congresspeople who are failing to change the direction of the federal government.
@georgetakei

@Wileymiller it's important to emphasize that no, there's not much the court can do because it's the wrong branch of government: it's Congress, not the Court, that's authorized to, and accountable to voters for, doing what they determine is needed with regard to the executive.

This isn't the end of democracy in the country. It IS democracy in the country. We elected congresspeople who are enabling all of this, so democracy is guiding this whole thing.

@old_hippie that's the opposite of what they ruled.

SCOTUS invited the judicial branch to scrutinize presidential actions for whether they are legal and thus part of his duties.

@yuhasz01

@Nonilex just because you personally haven't heard it doesn't mean there hasn't been a mention of it. It just means your window to the world may be a bit narrow.

YES, conservative media has not only mentioned but actually harped on it.

The White House generally follows whatever is going around the media. It doesn't lead; it parrots conservative memes.

@kgw well there's not much SCOTUS can do. They have intentionally limited authority.

The US system is designed so that it's Congress, not the judicial branch, that has authority to respond to cases like this.

But so far we're letting Congress defer to the executive, especially by letting them pass the buck to the Court.

@Nonilex it's not the Justices being played for fools. They know exactly what's going on.

But they also have intentionally limited jurisdiction and authority. In the US system separation of powers limits what they can do, regardless of the motives of those arguing before them.

In the end the proper response to this goes through Congress, not the SCOTUS. We're ALL being played for fools when we don't recognize that.

@bespacific there is another reason: we keep electing congresspeople who run based on false claims about how the US government functions.

It's a simple explanation. No need for any conspiratorial talk, just politicians lying for reelection.

Occam's Razor would have us consider that ahead of simulation theory... and have us stop accepting politicians saying things that run afoul of basic civics.

@BLTpizza

@craigduncan

No. Congress is the problem, and we shouldn't be letting all this other stuff distract from that.

The court system and SCOTUS are generally working, in the same way that a computer works even if it's fed bad data and so gives bad results.

Congress sets the rules and holds the executive to account according to the judgement of those we elect. We just keep electing and reelecting crap politicians. We should stop reelecting them.

BUT, one factor in their reelection is that we buy into their passing the buck to other branches, letting them blame others for exactly the things they have power to address.

@kyle

@old_hippie this juxtaposition is why it's not a slam dunk. This is a problem made by Congress, and we haven't held congresspeople accountable for making it:

"Trump's use of emergency powers to bypass Congress and unilaterally impose tariffs on most of the world. The plaintiffs are arguing that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1997"

So Trump isn't bypassing Congress as Congress already approved the authority... stupidly. Congress shouldn't have, and it should have canceled the authorization already.

The question now is one of nondelegation, and the Court would have to upend a TON of precedent to rule against the administration.

@Rasta they didn't, though.

The Supreme Court ordered proceedings against Trump to continue in the lower courts.

The Supreme Court ruled to give Trump the absolute immunity that he requested. They ruled against him, saying that anything he did illegal while in office is fair game for prosecution.

What the court said was that a sitting president cannot prosecute a former president without legal basis. If anything the ruling binds Trump's hands now saying that he can't prosecute Biden without cause.

So many have pushed the exact opposite story of what the court opinion actually said.

@coolandnormal

I think a lot of this comes out of decades of norms that misunderstand how computers work, fundamentally.

From how politicians talk through how courts have grappled with addressing legal questions, we've really leaned into this abstraction of cyberspace instead of concrete ideas that yes, there is a server, and yes, it is actively processing data somewhere tangible.

It would be very healthy to address accountability in the things you mention to be able to say, Wait, wait, where exactly is your server? Who can we [figuratively] punch in the face for how it behaves?

It's a big ship to turn around, though, and I see no movement to do it.

@drrjv that's not what it decided.

@Rasta The Supreme Court is controlled by its members.

It's ruled against Trump plenty, disproving these nutty conspiracy theories about a felon controlling it.