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
@aspensmonster@octodon.social money isn't speech and corporations aren't people.
So many misunderstand US law and misrepresent what courts have said on that count.
@kshernandez right, folks need to be looking for solutions through democratic processes, making arguments that compel the public at large, instead of looking to courts to impose changes they want to see, that the courts don't really have authority to impose anyway.
People get really off track reaching for the court like that.
@Free_Press I mean, Republicans reject her, so it's hard to call it their clown show.
Without Democrats threatening to vote in support of the extremists they'd be laughed out of the room immediately.
@upstreamism what is Lessig going on about now?
That wasn't left obscure at all in the oral argument. It was a focus of justices' attention!
Lessig is a clown.
@dougiec3 no?
If you have an actual argument against something laid out in the logic behind a ruling, then present it.
Otherwise you're just falling into conspiracy theory here.
Idaho v US abortion case
@maeve That'a not how the Supreme Court works, though, in the US system of government.
SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to support or not support Idaho in a case like this.
It just runs contrary to basic civics.
@JaniceOCG @newsopinionsandviews
What in the world are you talking about?
@x_minus_t@mstdn.social that was debunked pretty much immediately.
Biden's doing nobody any favors by dredging it up again now.
@atomicpoet the federal side is pretty straightforward: it's the executive branch that runs the jails and implements sentences, and since Trump would be given charge of the executive branch, he'd get to decide for himself how to handle his conviction.
Yes, he could pardon himself, or just ignore the ruling completely.
He could also be impeached and removed from office if our elected congresspeople decide it's just too silly a situation.
The state situation is more complicated since it would be a state executive running the jail and implementing the sentence.
The president can't directly interfere with that, BUT there's a solid argument that since the feds have supremacy over the states, a state can't interfere in the federal government by imprisoning the head of the federal government.
The sentence might be required to be delayed until he's out of office.
@_ good news: they can't overturn EMTALA.
That's not what the Supreme Court does; it doesn't have that authority even if it wanted to.
@Koochulainn indeed, and that is a critical objection, so it's worth identifying the objection clearly so it can be addressed.
But no, I interpreted the OP as looking into what people would do with the money after they receive it, which is certainly something many, many folks concern themselves with.
You know the old phrase, "They'll just use it to buy drugs"? That's the sort of objection I thought the OP was referring to.
@niclas well that's obviously false.
@farbel the problem is that we disagree about what the city is doing.
How can we agree on a moral judgment about what the city is doing if we don't agree about what that is?
Personally, I'm actually not interested in moralizing about how a distant city manages its own property. I'm not involved in that process, nor is it really any of my business.
I AM interested in the misinformation regarding the Supreme Court going around that impacts the whole country, though.
As a general rule, though, I'll say I support the democratic processes that lead to city management policies.
@jonburr there are a couple of different accusations involved, but one is exactly the opposite, that Trump contributed too much of his money, beyond federal limits, to the campaign for election purposes.
On that count he's being charged with violating campaign finance laws specifically because it was a contribution of his money over the limit.
@NewsDesk @trump-legal-issues-ElectionCentral
@farbel exactly.
Not a criminalization. They're asked to move along.
@farbel kind of, but in any case, that's exactly why SCOTUS is reviewing this case, because the 9th Circuit is probably wrong.
So we can see this in the application for cert:
"Grants Pass enforces these ordinances through civil citations, not through criminal fines or jail terms."
@Koochulainn it means the money is not given in exchange for anything, the recipient of the money has done nothing in exchange for the benefit.
@brainwane it's like saying, instead of regulating healthcare to make sure it's available to more people who need it, patients can simply pay more to get doctors to see them.
It's a foolish position to take.
@BobClinton that's not how the US government works, though.
SCOTUS has only the power to issue opinions. It has no power to dictate, or enforce, or control the police, or write legislation. Those are different branches of government.
SCOTUS won't make doing away with democracy legal because it literally can't do that even if it wanted to.
Whoever is telling you this stuff is relying on not knowing what the different branches of government do.
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:
