volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@CogitoErgoWtf well, what specifically in his dissent do you think points to such corruption?

@SonofaGeorge Thomas didn't vote to allow wife beaters to own guns. That wasn't the question before the Court.

The question was whether the other two branches could legally impose such restrictions.

@queenofnewyork No, that's not what happened. SCOTUS didn't do anything here.

Congress wrote the law to prevent abusers from owning guns, not the Supreme Court. Same with bump stocks: Congress could write a law to to ban them, but they haven't.

If we want the law changed we have to stop reelecting the same congresspeople who fail to change it.

The Supreme Court can't do Congress's job, though.

@RememberUsAlways only if you take a step farther back and also include how RBG's strategic retirement lost SCOTUS for the Democrats...

@freeschool again, my point is that posting these things is worse than unhelpful, if anything they actually contribute to the scraping.

This IS a platform where you broadcast content to anyone who wants it, including companies scraping. That's just the reality, and if you don't want to be doing that, then you don't want to be on this platform.

It's like using a bullhorn and then complaining that people can hear you. Don't use the bullhorn if you don't want to be heard.

To broadcast these notices not only doesn't stop the broadcast, but it sends more content into the scrapers, which is apparently the opposite of what so many want to do.

@BohemianPeasant Oh, I'd go the other way with that.

If you're going to go next level with the story (and if you're going into a conspiracy theory at all, why not make it interesting?) an ANTI-Trump justice or two might be holding it up to support this story that the Court is holding it up for Trump's benefit.

As outlandish as that is, it makes more sense than saying the Court is holding it up out of support for Trump since the Court has much better ways of doing that.

@ubiquiti_fanatic I didn't say otherwise.

If scumbags are fighting among themselves, well if you know that you might be able to use it against them.
@Savvyhomestead

@ChrisHolladay I think it's a case where anyone who's surprised by this was following information sources that mislead them as to how the Court has been ruling.

This outcome was completely consistent with what the Court has been writing in its opinions, contrary to what so many outlets have been saying.

@jackcole that gets a bit complicated in the US system since federal supremacy over states tends to prevent states from taking actions that would interfere with federal functions.

The arrest and trial of a Supreme Court justice might run into that. It would be a thorny issue.

So the best approach would be to impeach first and avoid the whole issue at all.

@gfarrell

@TheLastofHisName what? No. The corporations are happy to just have the protesters arrested and off their plates.

These people need to be going out into their communities and having sane, rational engagements with their fellow voters to change minds that will be reflected in their representative governments.

Otherwise, yes, the corps will laugh at them. Sit-ins and direct action are part of the corporations' playbooks. They know how to win that game.

So long as folks are doing that nonsense it keeps them from working to change voters' minds, which is what the corporations actually fear.

And that's the whole point.

@si_irini

@Nonilex I wouldn't say it's so much anti-regulation as much as pro-process.

After all, a regulation on sound legal footing--including Congressional authorization--is going to be more effective regulation in the end.

The arguments over things like Chevron deference aren't saying we shouldn't have regulation. They're saying we should do regulation correctly.

@jackcole more importantly, they're subject to impeachment.

Folks forget the one and only mechanism that's in place to react to a justice who's gone off the rails.

@gfarrell

@PeterSoukup I don't think those beliefs are as genuine as you make it sound.

When, in the course of running on women's rights and protection of democracy, the politician is citing falsehoods that they HAVE to know are false--from misstating laws through misstating history that they themselves were there to see--you can see that there's a level of dishonesty there as well.

I don't actually think Trump believes much of anything. He just stands in front of the crow and vomits out whatever is getting more applause moment by moment.

But I don't know if its better or worse to know nothing or to know but still mislead.

@si_irini I think we really do have to treat them like children.

When a child does something bad and stupid, maybe don't get angry, just do your best to teach them why what they did was wrong while sending them to time out when appropriate.

Sometimes anger is unavoidable, of course, but maybe framing it that way would be easier on your blood pressure :)

@ERBeckman the thing to keep in mind is that a substantial number of backers of this are effectively trolling you, and should be treated as such:

You ignore them other than filing the appropriate lawsuits to have a court slap it down.

Don't despair. Shake your head and move on.

Otherwise, you give them what they want and end up encouraging them.

@nathans you were on to something until the end with the example:

No, Trump didn't ignore dozens of court rulings saying he'd lost the election, since that's not how the courts work, nor is it how presidential elections work.

On top of that, he didn't take any substantial actions wrt to the election that were authoritarian.

Both Trump and Biden are guilty of impeachable authoritarian actions, working outside of the law. The thesis is well-served by a huge number of examples.

It's just, that's not one.

@Codeschubse save it by destroying it, huh?

@PeterSoukup perhaps Dems are doing the same, though, following some PR strategist advice to get a few more votes.

Two groups who aren't leaders but rather loudmouths following the way they think the wind is blowing in the broader public.

Well, at least that highlights that they're following us, if only us could get our stuff together.