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
@Xanatos Bluesky promises all that and more, though.
Bluesky lets you change servers but also lets you pick and choose functionality from other providers even in combination with whatever server.
And it makes it much more functional to change servers as you kind of own your account beyond the server.
@juergen_hubert you're missing that originalism applies to contemporaneous laws as well.
For example, originalism requires the enforcement of the 14th Amendment, and that's certainly not a product of slaveholders!
Originalism is about strict interpretation of laws, including those promoting civil rights. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
@MikeImBack the problem is that half the country was told this alternative story of a trial that was horribly unfair, and we can't just ignore that.
The alternative story is so widespread that it needs to be addressed somehow. Otherwise, if nothing else, that's how Trump gets reelected.
Trump case appeal plans; prospects
@maeve to be clear, different experts will believe different things, so for an issue like this one can find experts to support just about whatever conclusion they want to hear.
Plenty of experts see room for a successful appeal, even if I'm personally on the skeptical side.
@BohemianPeasant well that's not true, and we can see that even in recent opinions that have corrected the errors in previous opinions.
And that's not even getting into the error correction that happens through lower courts.
@JBShakerman well right, because in order to have judicial independence we have to prevent the other branches from having power over the courts.
There's a very good reason that justices must call out such subpoenas as invalid.
Should the court come under the control over other branches it would create a conflict of interests that strikes at the heart of the federal design.
@Itchy I don't know where you're hearing that, but if you pay attention to the Supreme Court docket and Alito's own writings, it really debunks claims like that.
YES women and unions get through the door. Alito personally rules for them.
These sensational claims painting a dystopian picture are just not realistic, but they do promote special interests.
@Kozmo it's not, though.
The one remedy is impeachment. Anything else threatens judicial independence.
@ginaintheburg well, it's a little more complicated because Trump COULD appeal to SCOTUS claiming violation of federal rights, but it would be a longshot.
Yes, the state issues would need to be appealed to the state courts first, but claims of for example due process violation could go to the federal courts.
@ablueview that's not Alito's position.
@darulharb Calabresi is missing a critical detail: the NY law that Trump violated doesn't require commission of an underlying law but rather the INTENT TO commit a crime.
Whether that is good or bad is a different question, but it is what it is.
Calabresi is also likely wrong about his 1st Amendment argument too, but it doesn't even matter because he missed the intent issue.
@rameshgupta so, I'm citing the founding documents that establish the Court in the first place.
What are you citing?
I'm putting on the table the rule that caused the court to be in the first place.
You're handwaving and namecalling.
You see how I feel I have the stronger case?
@realcaseyrollins can you prove your case with anything other than appeals to deep down knowledge?
@doctorambient what they're missing is that when it comes to #voting and other political issues, appearances matter.
You can say all day (as the article mentions) that there are hidden protections in place, but that's little comfort to those questioning it.
Had we more positive confirmations of security we wouldn't have so many people questioning it.
"Don't worry about it" is not sufficient answer for the general public.
@benroyce keep in mind that one of the major features of a distributed network like this, in fact one of the features that distinguish it from those other platforms, is that nobody has authority over it, not even Gargron.
If Gargron could address your concern on his own, well, that defeats the whole purpose.
But no, the drama over meta is overblown.
My main (and far out) hope with regard to the #Trump verdict is that it causes at least some people to notice that he and the media ecosystem around him have been lying to them about the trial this whole time.
For months they've been spouting that this is a case without merit, without evidence, without even charges. It's a slam dunk: OF COURSE he'll be let off.
Well, the guilty verdict is going to cause at least some people to wonder what went wrong, look into it, and notice they were told so wrong.
Maybe Trump will appeal and have the charges reversed. BUT he'd never be able to unring the bell of people noticing that he (and media figures) mislead them so, well, hugely.
@realcaseyrollins one thing that so many Trump supporters overlook is that Trump has a ceiling where other voters will refuse to vote for him under any circumstances.
They look at trend lines but don't notice that ceiling. At some point the pool of potential Trump voters will be exhausted and his support can grow no higher.
I'd say that applies here. I don't think many more will vote for him over this, because folks who are open to the possibility had already bought into it.
@realcaseyrollins Trump declined to take the stand and defend himself...
@Captain_Jack_Sparrow
@hughrbeyer but this is it exactly: Congress has impeachment authority against individual justices, not against the Court as a whole.
It has power to impeach INSTEAD OF oversight over the Court.
If it wants to impeach Alito it can, and that is the proper remedy, responding to misbehavior while maintaining the independence of the other co-equal branch.
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:
