volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@TCatInReality the other critical thing to keep in mind is that it is adamantly NOT the job of the Supreme Court to defend the 1st amendment or any other amendment.

That's more a function of the other branches.

The Supreme Court was granted limited judicial power, not executive power, in deciding cases coming before it, a grant of jurisdiction for it to use as it will, so long as it doesn't cross the Constitution.

For practical reasons at times courts will skip unnecessary steps in the judicial process, but in this case the petitioners didn't make the case that the steps they were looking to skip were so unnecessary.

What the Court did, in declining to shirt circuit lower courts is exactly how it's supposed to work, as per the Constitution.

Had they done anything different, they would have been breaking their constitutional responsibilities.

@mk IPNS is a way for locating data without needing to rely on the DNS system.

It might be a useful approach for increased decentralization, especially for content addressed records.

@Hyolobrika @CSB@noauthority.social

@Hyolobrika I don't think so at all.

To the extent that we can identify a spirit ( :) ) I'd say giving end users the authority to enter in to whatever sort of relationship meets their needs is exactly what Bitcoin is aiming for.

It pushes those decisions out to the individual user of Bitcoin rather than forcing them into a fairly limited set of approved possibilities.

If I want to enter into some sort of custodial relationship because that works for me and my needs from currency, Bitcoin empowers me to do so.

@CSB@noauthority.social

@TCatInReality right, under certain circumstances a stay or injunction is legal and appropriate.

The problem is that they didn't find it to be that here.

So rather than exceed authority by issuing an inappropriate stay here, they stuck to their Constitutional role and let the process work though the normal procedure.

@TCatInReality the Constitution limits the authority of the Supreme Court.

For the Court to exceed its authority by issuing rulings outside of the legal process, THAT would be failing their duty to the Constitution.

And the dissents would have noted objections without risking taking the case in any fashion. That's part of why that process exists.

@TCatInReality that's not how the appeals process works, though.

The Court isn't refusing to defend the 1st Amendment since the lower court hasn't yet completed work to see if there's a 1st Amendment issue here in the first place.

The Supreme Court hasn't had a full briefing on this case, so it would be inappropriate for it at this moment to interfere in the lower court's work by making such a claim.

They didn't choose to allow suppression to stand. Instead, they chose to allow the constitutional process to address allegations of suppression.

Again, not a single justice filed a dissent saying that this was allowing suppression to stand.

This is how the legal process works in the US, and for good reasons.

@SinclairSpeccy the funny thing is I wasn't sure what you meant by decent word count.

Some people around here consider long posts to be positively indecent :)

Anyway, assuming you mean you'd like an instance with a high limit and you'd like to stick to Mastodon instead of going to something like Friendica, this instance qoto.org has a very high character limit.

@SpaceLifeForm there are a lot of problems with threading posts like that.

They range from simple issues of some clients doing a bad job of formatting them for display through severe issues of accessibility.

Not to mention, on the creator's side they constrain what the author might want to do, forcing them to chop up paragraphs to work for the technology instead of having the technology work for them and their intentions.

We really need to move technology forward and stop accepting such echos of the past.

@SinclairSpeccy

@m Thanks for sharing!

That does a pretty good job of capturing just how annoyingly thorny that problem is.

@remixtures the critical point is that this doesn't mean trusted third parties are required.

ETFs can help serve as anchors for Bitcoin, similar to interest rates, but they're optional, with users free to take advantage of them or not as they feel like.

It's nice to see such an anchor emerge, as it has positive implications for the operation of the currency, so the good vibes from the SEC decision are rational.

@tom I'm under the impression that AP groups aren't well documented simply because they're still rather theoretical.

Which is to say, in the abstract, people talk about group functionality, but it means different things to different people, folks haven't really settled on how they are supposed to behave, the semantics of them, etc.

In the protocol itself we can see the bits that would enable that functionality, but we haven't really reached a consensus on how it would/should translate from bits to user experience.

And part of the problem is that when groups run up against popular UIs that aren't ready to deal with them, it can really blow up the user experience, so it's hard to develop that incrementally.

@CSB@noauthority.social this is wrong, though.

Firstly, with Bitcoin itself, there are ways built in to the technology to enable wallet recovery. If people aren't using those mechanisms, well, that's a different matter.

Secondly, even beyond Bitcoin, in modern finance we certainly have solved these problems with things like insurance and custodial relationships.

There are other reasons Bitcoin doesn't catch on, but this isn't it.

@Free_Press I always love when a report quotes someone complaining about out of context quoting, but does so in an piece with out of context quotes.

@TCatInReality that's just not accurate, and here's a link to the plaintiff's plea so you can read for yourself.

Not only did the lower courts agree to hear the case, but they were *still in the process of hearing* the case.

So the Supreme Court merely said they'd let the normal process work through, as is normal and constitutional.

That there wasn't a single dissent registered against the SCOTUS decision is a good indication that many of the sensational stories about this are false.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A820/302105/20240306105608311_SCOTUS%20Injunction%20Application_Final.pdf

@ScottLucas I can try to rephrase: I have many criticisms of the SOTU presentation on infrastructure and the economy, but one of the core criticisms is that Biden's presentation didn't work toward consensus that would actually lead to the implementation of his proposals.

By sticking with positions that have already been long-rejected by groups outside his base, Biden's speed didn't work to bring over supporters that he'd need to actually do what he was proposing.

And that's regardless of whether they were good ideas or not--a much bigger question.

This is why it's so noteworthy that he delivered a stump speech at the SOTU address.

As for supporting Trump, no, I do everything I can to point out what a defective candidate he has been.

@TCatInReality Well right, because that's how the US judicial system is set up.

It's not the legislative branch. The place to handle that sort of concern is in the other branch of government.

This is the judicial branch where the system is set up to take time, let lower courts debate and explore issues before overtime raising them to the upper court.

It is absolutely reasonable, given the design of the US system, that the Supreme Court would be much more interested in taking on established rights, as that sits roll in the government.

@julie sure.

You're responding to a comment where a person just slings mud at the court without any particular argument or outlining of a disagreement or anything else, just a profanity. It's not useful.

So when you ask now what, I agree, what is going on?

And the answer is that here is a person who is just slinging mud on social media without any particular understanding of the court or current events.

And I think it's worth calling such people out for the toxic influences that they are on society.

Anyone saying something like fuck scotus is someone to be called out for being negative, someone looking to tear down based on their own misunderstanding of the world, not a serious person, and it's really antisocial.

But this is social media. That is pretty common around here.

@RainofTerra