volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@timo21 again, for the purpose of technicality, not for the purpose of general usage.

Arguing about the technical definition doesn't change that it is in fact a technical definition. And that's the point.

@risibledog yes. That is a conspiracy theory.

Worse is that it's based on fundamental misunderstandings of how the US government is designed, of basic civics.

But yes, it's a conspiracy theory.

@KathyLK yes, because there's too much work to do at the Court for them to be distracted by sensational stories like this.

Alito has real business to take care of. He can't spend his days worrying about placating social media.

That's more of a legislative branch task, where representatives have to worry about addressing concerns of voters, no matter how off the wall.

@bespacific the problem is that regulation of the Supreme Court would violate the independence of the judiciary.

If our representatives feel that action needs to be taken, they have impeachment, but that's it.

This was the intentional design to prevent the other branches from interfering in the Court's proceedings.

@mgmarkel because it's not more powerful than the president.

By design and intention, the Supreme Court was not granted such authority. It was intentionally limited, as it would be incredibly foolish for unelected judges to have such levers of power.

So they don't. And it's a good thing that misrepresentation isn't spread farther through schools.

@indigo8s

@albnelson the answer is simple: the US is a diverse country, and not everyone shares your personal upbringing and experiences.

It's so important that people realize that diversity and take caution in projecting their own upbringings on others.

@witchescauldron I would push back on that saying it's not about balance but about different tools for addressing different, unrelated problems.

To go back to my analogy above, it's not that you need a balance between a hammer and a screwdriver, but that you need a hammer for nails, a screwdriver for screws, and the perspective of which is which.

@risibledog yes, a lot of people might say that, but they come across as promoting sensational stories instead of taking an honest and reasonable look at the state of the world.

And that's exactly what I'd criticize these reporters for promoting, the sensational instead of the responsible.

That you'd channel conspiracy theory only illustrates how problematic this sort of story is. We get nowhere with that nonsense.

@jchyip if nothing else, a sign of general distress simply represents the sense that so many of us have that things are pretty screwy in the country right now.

But news reports say there had been a lot of drama in the neighborhood, with different neighbors putting up their own signs.

There's no reason to jump to more sensational conclusions when the simpler explanations suffice.

@risibledog sounds like you're channeling that there are generally some screwy things in the world.

Well, what of the reported show that it was a sign of agreement with you? That the flag was upside down to express how messed up things were becoming?

I wouldn't say that's so fucked up.

@timo21 the thing to keep in mind is that there are technical differences between "people" and "people under the Constitution" just as the idea that corporations are people misunderstands the technical terminology.

It's important to recognize when a term being used is technical or common.

@breedlov if you've listened to Republicans over years, as their stances adapted, it's not so much hypocrisy as a recognition that the rules aren't what they'd prefer, but they have to work with the system as it is, especially if they ever want to change the rules to crack down on ballot harvesting.

It's been a longrunning conversation between them, with nuances that might be missed to a person who hasn't kept track.

@itslinklauren from what I've seen, the majority of Americans don't even know what the charges are, and so really don't have informed opinions about the trial.

But even without a trial, it's not like the money being spent on it would go to fixing overseas wars or whatever.

Heck, Trump's fines might help pad those budgets!
@vivekgramaswamy

@NewsDesk funny thing is that this administration has called into question whether those privileges can be claimed during future administrations, so the criminal shield might not stand either.

What a mess.

@dougiec3 The reporting has that backwards.

The LA motion was about PRESERVING voting rights after a lower court was acting screwy against them.

Sadly, the general state of voting law in the US is pretty screwy these days, but still.

This was a victory for voting rights, or at least not a defeat.

@sundogplanets it's all about balance, looking for the balance between risk mitigation vs advancement of public interests.

Like, everything we do can kill people. Do we not do anything? Ever? No, we sit down and work out risks, reasonable strategies for addressing the risk, and then we do our best to get that balance right.

I don't find this terrifying at all. It seems like the reasonable and acceptable outcome, with all of the oversight and risk management that's in place.

We can't just live in fear.

@JohnBarentine sure it can be both.

One possibility is that there was disruption that lowered performance by a few percent. Disrupted, but not terribly so.

Another possibility is that there was significant disruption over the weekend, but after that passed, now they're fine.