volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
@ematts@mastodon.online
I mean, it's nice that you believe that, but then we also don't want to give someone like you authority to impose your personal beliefs because you yourself might be corrupt.
(or misinformed, which I suspect is the case)
Maybe it should be up to me, though?
No. We leave it to the democratic process because of all of the non-ideal options, that's probably the best option there is, without any one authoritarian hand being able to intrude into the judicial branch, with all of the conflicts of interest that that involves.
If we as a country--represented through our democratic process--don't think there's a problem with a justice, well that's that.
If you care about this issue then think hard about it when you decide whether to reelect your representative who's choosing not to impeach.
Kick him out for failure if you want.
@WritingFactory
Well mainly that it's the core political problem in the USA, but I'm also skeptical that this ever happened in the first place, not that that matters.
Mainly that this is the core political problem, because I don't think it is.
Folks don't like to admit it, but even "show the most recent post first" is an algorithm.
Yes, #fediverse has algorithms.
The question is whether we want choices of better ones or not.
@ematts@mastodon.online
Well it's because we want a firewall to protect judicial independence.
It's one thing to pass a law and dictate what a letter carrier might do, but to have the legislative and executive branches dictating things of the Supreme Court? That's far more fraught.
If a justice is misbehaving them they can be impeached. That's the one and only reaction provided to deal with justices without violating judicial independence.
May be something explicit?
Right. The Republicans I hear from long ago settled on the "well that's just how real estate works" position.
So the decision doesn't change anything. If anything it merely reinforces their ideas about Trump.
@freemo so I think that's the key, focusing on the different sets of facts, working on coming to some consensus with them over what is true.
You started by saying you were astonished by the theories, but given the alternative sets of facts, it shouldn't be so astonishing.
Its simply people working from a different playbook, and often having very predictable ideas based on the facts they're working with.
@freemo well for anyone else who's interested in this line of thought, I'd emphasize no *legal* check.
There are bureaucratic checks, folks in the chain of command who can put up speedbumps or be hassles to any command, whether it be "bring be coffee" or "launch a nuke".
It's not about legality at that point but about management of the sprawling executive branch of the US government.
At some point it might be easier to fulfill some legal requirement than to get cooperation out of some 18 year old service member five levels down a management bureaucracy..
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social well right, and part of the story that ProPublica doesn't bother mentioning is that Thomas points out that he was completely in compliance with the reporting rules as they stood.
@vy proof?
@freemo this is one of those cases where I'd say it's important to talk to [at least] a person who has the perspective to find out why they believe it.
Have you?
So very often when I talk to people who have perspectives that are so different from my own I figure out, through discussion, why they believe what they believe, generally because they're working with a different set of facts or premises.
I know a few people with really out there beliefs, and when I chat with them I figure out the factually disagreements we have, so their ideas are sometimes rather sensible, given their inputs.
That's literally not what he said though.
The original tweet sounds like an attempt at a joke to me, so if he says that's what it was, then I can believe it.
If it doesn't match a person's notion of what a joke is, well that gets complicated.
Of course the internet can exist without central authorities!
You are welcome to run your own internet any day of the week. Set one up in your own home if you'd like.
The entire point of the engineering behind the internet is about enabling such things.
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
Yes, it's in the basic notion of the US federal government being comprised of three coequal branches.
Should the legislative branch be able to pass laws constraining the the Court or the executive branch be able to act against the Court then they would be above the judicial branch in violation of that fundamental design, violating judicial independence.
So yep, the impeachment power is provided as the solution here, the way to remove a justice personally without violating the firewall between branches of government.
If a justice is not worth impeaching then the whole thing is null in the first place.
Here's a link to the Library of Congress page where you can browse the dozens and dozens of bills that the House has passed.
I don't know who told you they haven't passed one piece of legislation, but you should probably not trust that source.
@retrohondajunki@mstdn.social
I mean Jeffries leads the block that voted unanimously against proceeding on funding!
It's not the fault of dysfunction... and then the piece goes on to describe the dysfunction
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
