volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@rameshgupta the foundational design of the Supreme Court is to be one of the three branches of the federal government.

It is established and operates as one of three branches, able to operate independently of the other two so that it can provide a check on the other two.

Nothing in that fundamental order says the slightest thing about those groups that you don't like.

So yes, judicial independence is fundamental. It exists as an independent branch.

@bronakins @Nonilex

@bronakins I mean, yes.

The structural importance of maintaining judicial independence is pretty much the most fundamental priority the Court has.

@rameshgupta Exactly what law do you think they're violating and being excused from?

@tristansnell

@iuculano seems the opposite to me: he trusts that people would be smart enough to ignore these weak claims against him.

@WmShakesp3are

@ChemicalEyeGuy ok, I thought I was clear in what I was asking, but sure, what observations?

That's what I was asking.

@hughrbeyer keep in mind that the Supreme Court is constitutionally separated from congressionally established lower courts.

I think you're confusing those two different parts of the third branch.

@qotca@mastodon.social

@waysideollie except that he probably had enough basic understanding to know that the flag means things that you seem unaware of--he knew enough to know of flag meanings that in no way warranted removal.

Just because YOU don't know, and so want to project your limited understanding onto his life, doesn't mean he needs to act as if he had sunk to your level.

@jackiegardina you feel trolled by recognition of modern ideas about women's independence from their husbands?

Tricky, that one.

@waysideollie do you realize that upside-down flags have long established other meanings that have nothing to do with current events?

Sounds like you're assuming Alito should have the same level of ignorance that you're projecting here.

Turns out he might be much more informed about flag meanings.

@qotca@mastodon.social sure, asking tough questions for the voters they're trying to score political points with.

But hopefully plenty of these congresspeople realize that this is not only nonsense, but nonsense that would threaten the independence of the judiciary, if they were serious.

And if voters knew their civics well enough to realize just what clowns they're being with these stunts.
@hughrbeyer

@iuculano

You're missing that some people are happy to see impropriety in the weirdest places, especially when it supports their prejudices.

That's why the key is to AVOID the appearance, because it can't be eliminated.

Can't stop nutjobs with axes to grind from imagining impropriety, so might as well ignore them.

And yeah, these nutty reactions to Alito have been pretty, well, nutty.

@WmShakesp3are

@ChemicalEyeGuy where did you get the impression that was a general description of Trump supporters?

@Twitter_expat@mastodon.world well, I think it's critical to realize that Trump was a symptom of problems, not the cause.

American democracy elected him because people felt (rightly or wrongly) that the system was so failing them.

We need to work on fixing our institutions. All the focus on Trump instead of underlying problems gets the situation backward and risks making it worse.

Trump didn't come and wreck the system. The wrecked system lead to Trump. We need to fix it.

@kagan careful: some of those execs might be looking for cover, excuses not to go the EV direction with their business.

The auto execs might be delighted to use him to this end.

@Nonilex always keep in mind that Trump does this kind of thing as engagement with the crowd that supports him, as SO MANY in the country have been fed the stories from those sycophants.

It's not that Trump's driving a conversation or whatever. It's that he sees how the winds of his political side are blowing and joins in.

It's his SOP. He's a follower, and this is just him following.

@ChemicalEyeGuy it's more that they recognize that those stats taken out of context are misleading.

I mean, it's not like they have everything (or much) right, but I think some of them at least recognize proper criticisms of the other team when it fits their cognitive biases.

@sj_zero yeah, I think part of what you're seeing is that different judges/justices use oral arguments for different purposes. As each has different goals with their exchanges, it makes things a little unpredictable.

Briefly, for example, while one justice might use oral arguments to voice the heart of the matter, another might use the time to help a speaker make the very best case they can, even though it's probably wrong, to show that the losing side had every chance--they weren't ignored.

The latter use might make the losing side sound much stronger that it really was, if you see what I'm saying.

@DoesntExist@mastodon.social where did I say everything was OK?

It's more that if you want to address problems then you have to understand the problem to find a solution. It does no good to run into a wall with a solution to either the wrong problem or just one that doesn't fit.

For example, I have HUGE issues with how prosecutors have handled these cases, and I wish they'd be held accountable for their failures to get this done, but too often they're ducking accountability because people are too distracted chasing these shadows of legal procedure.

When prosecutors open themselves up to problems with legal procedure, it's time to blame the prosecutor, not the procedure. They should have known the rules.

@elan