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
@Liliki@sfba.social that conspiracy theory is pretty easy to debunk by reading Supreme Court rulings directly instead of listening to special interests that mislead the public for their own benefit.
@staringatclouds no, he won't, because that's not how the US judicial system is set up.
Whoever is telling you this is lying to you.
@elan what you're missing is that the system is protecting itself just fine by refusing to take illegal actions.
This is how the system is SUPPOSED to work. This IS the system.
Apparently Reich would like to rush things. THAT would be breaking the system. And the system is protecting itself by saying no, Robert, we're going to go through the process even if you don't like it.
Biden can't act against Trump because that's not how our system is set up. The system is protecting itself against such political action.
@rbreich it's not, though.
That's not how the Supreme Court or the US justice system works.
If you wanted a knee jerk resolution, don't go to the courts. They're specifically designed not to do that.
It's like reaching for a hammer and then complaining that it's on the side of the screw that it's not effective in removing: I'm sorry you reached for the wrong implement, but it's doing what it's supposed to do, not because it's on the side of the fastener but because it's doing what it's supposed to be doing.
@lawprofblawg my perception is that presidents were always happy to criticize the ICC.
@HeavenlyPossum but there are factual differences making your comparison simply not hold.
@touaregtweet that's not what happened.
That's not how the Supreme Court works. It's not a legislature.
Folks need to stop passing this nonsense around.
@swanksalot Biden doesn't have that authority.
@MikeImBack well the problem is that social media is full of folks passing around sensational, false accounts of what's going on, so yeah, that's the fix.
Tell people to pipe down and do some fact checking instead of promoting the conspiracy theories they're sharing.
@justiceLICSW I mean, he's worthy because he was nominated and approved by the people we elected to the Senate.
Those are the only qualifications that count for the SCOTUS.
@bespacific no, the fate rests firstly in the democratic process.
It's really barking up the wrong tree to focus on the courts.
@albnelson here's an analogy: How much change do I have in my pocket right now?
Would you project, you have thirty five cents, so I must as well?
Or would you simply say, I don't know as there isn't enough information to guess?
Go for the latter option. We don't need to project; we don't need to guess. And then you don't need to be confused.
Your projection is leading to your confusion, so you might as well decline to do that in the first place.
@ginaintheburg Our system isn't supposed to be one where only the elite can understand it.
Court records are posted publicly so we can all read them, because we can all see what's happening.
So there's the docket. We can see what's going on in the Court. We don't need attorneys to tell us what's happening.
@witchescauldron If you want to say something then say it.
We're not going to go scrounging around some website to figure out what you're trying to say.
@jdpribula I mean, it would be tyrannical for the Supreme Court to put Trump and his political allies away.
@joeinwynnewood it's how the Court functions, though.
If you go to the Court for an opinion, then you have to wait for the Court to go through its process to craft the opinion.
The Supreme Court is not meant to be fast. It's meant to be correct, no matter if it takes time to get to the right decision.
This is, BTW, one great reason not to try to use the courts when one is in a rush.
@Kozmo except, that sort of thing violates the notion that we have an independent judiciary.
You can't both have an independent court and a Congress with such power over it. The two are contradictory.
We already have a solution here: impeachment. It is the one and only way to address such a situation, should it be warranted.
Of course, in this case Jeffries just comes across sounding like a partisan, an extremist stirring the pot for political points.
@QasimRashid the problem is, your article doesn't really talk about justice so much as your own personal political opinions.
It's really, What if the Supreme Court is the Greatest Obstacle to Someone Like Me Imposing My Opinions On The Country.
And, well... that's probably for the best.
@KawaTora@kolektiva.social yeah, but yay democracy: lots of people DO want that kind of thing in charge of running government.
The people get the government they want, even if it's a really bad one.
@Doreen32128 that kind of thing is common enough in the tech world.
Investors throw money at projects hoping to get in on the ground floor of one that takes off, even if most will fail.
My guess is that Truth Social won't be one of the winners, so it won't continue to operate. But if it happens to take off, I'll have missed out.
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:
