volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@Island_Martha well it's just how this is supposed to work under separation of powers.

The executive branch is unlikely to prosecute itself. That would be a bizarre for it to take itself to trail.

However, Congress still has this mechanism to formally express its displeasure, and it helps them to build a record should they decide to take more actions within their powers.

This is simply how the process is supposed to work.

@Free_Press

@SocialJusticeHeals

That's the wrong branch of government, though.

It's up to Congress to write bump stock laws, not the courts. We keep reelecting the lawmakers who kept bump stocks legal.

Protest Congress and tell them to fix it. And for god sake, stop reelecting the same clowns that wrote the law that way.

@schizanon

Yes.

Because that's how the law is written.

Don't like it? Great! We should stop reelecting the lawmakers who don't fix the law.

It's not up to Thomas to override the laws made by the people we voted, and reelected, into lawmaking positions.

@gedeonm I mean, yes.

The bump stock ban ran afoul of the law because we keep voting in people who didn't write a law that would authorize the ban.

We SHOULD have been voting in better people this whole time. We keep reelecting the same people who didn't authorize the ban.

This isn't about Republicans or Democrats or the Supreme Court. We keep reelecting the people who maintained the legality of bump stops all these years.

This is about voters voting for bad representatives over and over.

@Hyolobrika

... I mean, practicality is kind of important?

@Perspective

@nicholas said what? What quote are you quoting?

I have no idea what you're going on about, and I'm asking for clarification, but you're not giving me anything to work with here.

I don't know what you're talking about, and you're not clarifying what you're trying to say.

I asked what my case is, and you've just said something about your own quotations, which doesn't answer my question about what you think my case is.

@JaniceOCG that's simply not the case. Democrats are free to nominate someone else at their convention, or put enormous pressure on Biden to step down, or enact all sorts of other mechanisms to get a worthwhile candidate.

If they don't, well, that's their choice.

Same with Republicans.

Both parties are voluntarily shooting themselves in their feet, and it remains their options to change course.

@dcjohnson not at all.

In the US we elect politicians who refuse to enact such tax increases.

Doesn't have anything to do with big money or corruption. It's simply reality that the people we voters choose to elect aren't going to pass the tax policies that you're talking about, that would be required for your plan.

@Perspective well, it comes down to the separation of powers at the core to the US system.

It's not that the US government has to protect the opposition, but rather that the opposition is protected so long as legislation isn't passed to enable threatening them.

Under this system the president can't act without authority. IF there has been legislation enabling such attacks on the opposition, then that's the heart of the problem and the legislation needs to be reformed.

But mainly, Trump's a moron who's spouting nonsense that his followers, sadly, believe in part because we don't tend to call it out as nonsensical rantings and false promises.

@PeterLG that's not quite how the US works.

It's not really a question about whether a president can pardon himself, but rather whether such a pardon would be respected, and that's a question that may change over time and by situation.

It's just how the US system works, and I believe @lawfare itself covered this a while back.

@nicholas what do you think my case is?

What am I leaving unproven?

@JaniceOCG do Democrats are free to nominate someone else.

If they stick with Biden, despite all of his failures, well, as a party they're choosing not to offer a decent candidate.

It's up to the party whether to stick with this flawed candidate or find someone better.

@JaniceOCG to be clear, the US AG works for the president and is tasked with carrying out administration policy.

The buck stops with Biden.

Democrats would do well to dump Biden and choose another nominee to vote for, because otherwise Biden is shirking responsibility for your list.

@PattyHanson right but that's key: Roberts agrees with what's going on WITHIN THE COURT.

And he's staying out of all of this distraction outside of the Court, as he should, given his position.

If Congress wants to impeach and remove a justice for misbehavior, let them. That's their job, not Roberts's.

@dcjohnson in theory that may be true, but in reality such taxation is not politically possible.

So many of these wonderful economic theories simply fail under harsh realities.

So, GIVEN THAT we will not see such taxation, what's the next best option? Probably exactly the things you're questioning here: taxes are revenue.

@AndreasThinks I suspect this is a reflection of the specialized nature of those topics--they're a bit unapproachable to amateurs--which means the population of potential people to participate in those conversations is a bit small.

And it just happens to not have much overlap with the Fediverse userbase, as workers in the field also just might not have that much free time to dip their toes here and sort through all of the other topics that do get more airtime here.

Maybe ironically, better AI would help make Fediverse feeds more useful to people like them, as the chronological sort is unwieldy.

@JamesGleick we really need to push back on this idea that Supreme Court justices have such power.

They don't.

The system was specifically designed to ensure that they would not receive such authority, declining to give executive privileges to the unelected justices.

The perspective that you're quoting falls apart against that reality, as Alito has not found himself in such a powerful position.

Instead, he writes opinions.

@nicholas It's almost like I'm trying to get to the core of your own position irrespective of anyone else.

Your perspective should be able to stand on its own, one would think.

@RememberUsAlways Nice conspiracy theory you've got there.

@meowski did you include any quotes from people that don't support your conclusions? Certainly they exist.

Therefore they are cherry picked and confirming your biases.

@nicholas @Captain_Jack_Sparrow @cjd @realcaseyrollins