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
@realTuckFrumper always remember that Sotomayor is pretty dumb, so when she spouts off like this you really can't put too much stake in it.
@MasterMischief application or misapplication, the rule has been there the whole time. No change in rules as claimed. That was false.
As for the rest, these are the people we voted for applying the rules that they have at their disposal.
@newsopinionsandviews That's not what Clarence Thomas said in his dissent. He explicitly said otherwise.
Thomas said to go ahead and bring charges against domestic abusers. Take their guns away. Just do it in a way that respects due process.
@iuculano That's not how this is working at all though. You're just promoting a conspiracy theory that doesn't match reality.
In reality the executive branch is completely free to move forward with Trump trials. They chose to involve legal theories that brought the Supreme Court into the matter, and literally any hour Biden is free to pivot and bring a case that doesn't involve these legal questions.
That's not up to the Supreme Court. That's up to the other branch of government.
These conspiracy theories are based on lack of understanding of what's actually happening here.
@grrlscientist Total immunity is emphatically not what this case is about. Both parties to the case have explicitly explained that.
@mloxton Well it's a matter of judicial Independence. If we want an independent judiciary then we have to let them make their own rules, including making their own timelines.
It's a matter of principle that a court will take its time to issue an opinion when it's ready. And not before. So this is the matter of principle, this is a principled Court not being rushed by political concerns.
@Free_Press The answer is simple: you can encourage people to be better people while still acknowledging that individuals aren't perfect. That they have flaws.
This is pretty standard.
@marynelson8 according to the article referenced there was no change in rules.
This was simply the application of the long-standing rule in the House.
You don't understand the Citizens United decision.
In that decision the Supreme Court absolutely and explicitly did NOT give constitutional power to corporations. In his opinion Kennedy made that clear.
There has been so much misinformation about that ruling, but yeah, the Court ruled the opposite.
@SETSystems@defcon.social @MarcAbrahams
@bigheadtales and they are right to ignore the whole "militia thing" based on how the amendment was written.
If you want to change it, go ahead! That's how the process is supposed to work.
Until the amendment is changed, though, the "amendment thing" is phrased specifically so as to be ignored.
Honestly, when you hear her in oral argument it's not clear that Sotomayor knows what's going on in the world at all. She keeps asking questions in oral argument that completely miss the question before them.
She's pretty dumb. I wouldn't take any article citing her talking about the sky falling as particularly worthwhile.
@BohemianPeasant the US legal system has rules that are open to the public, that aren't confined to any one court, not even the Supreme Court.
They aren't opaque. They're out there in the open for us all to watch, or at least, for those nerdy enough to care about this stuff to watch :)
So really, it's like those of us who watch CSPAN and see the processes of Congress vs those who don't.
The rules of, say, evidenciary proceedings in the federal courts are written down for all to see, for anyone who wants to read them. That's how we know.
It's just that, looking at the actual rules of the US system makes it harder for reporters and special interest groups to get clicks if they actually consider them.
@JBShakerman SCOTUS didn't make bumpstocks available.
We kept electing and reelecting congresspeople who over and over failed to outlaw them
I don't know if you want to blame the voters for that, but at least we should be blaming the other branch of government for it.
@copter_chief The case is not about absolute immunity, though. Both parties agreed to that explicitly even though it was never part of the filing in the first place, just to be perfectly clear about it.
Yes, there are some media outlets misreporting this. We should stop trusting those outlets because they are promoting a lie.
@joeinwynnewood an important part of the picture is the impression that it's being forced from above and not simply adopted as reasonable based on the situation.
It's one thing to say, you do what's best for your company and your clients and your institution. It's another thing to say you must do this regardless of whether it's for the best or not.
It has a lot to do with micromanaging, particularly from a government that people have lost faith in.
@NewsDesk Well right, because they didn't falsely declare Donald Trump winner.
They engaged in a legal process, and the judge recognized that, despite sensationalist stories trying to portray this otherwise.
@Hyolobrika Yeah, it's certainly practical, work with the world we have not the one we wish we had 🙂
@jackcole sure, I would never say federal supremacy is absolute, but it is a serious consideration, one that we have fortunately not had to deal with all that much historically, but it's something that's lurking there under the surface should a major federal official be sidelined from their job by a state or local government.
For what it's worth, my preference would be that we ignore this completely, and a federal official unable to do the job due to arrest would simply be seen as unable to do their job and replaced. However, I recognize the pragmatic concern and the reason this is still a factor to be considered.
@bigheadtales The one has nothing to do with the other, though.
Even if guns were commonly stored in armories and not homes (which I'm skeptical of but nevermind) that doesn't mean the people who wrote the Constitution had a point of view that was limited to guns being relegated to armories.
The justices of the Court lay out their reasoning. We don't have to go on these conspiracy theories when they ride out the reasoning by which they came to their conclusions.
@TCatInReality there's no reason to need nine justices on a case. We have a long history of having opinions handed down with fewer, and no particular reason to need that many anyway.
Three justices or even a single justice is perfectly able to issue a ruling if need be. There's no reason that's not possible.
And the lottery system would do nothing to change whether or not the personality of judges is or is not a factor. It just means a roll of the dice to see which personalities are involved, if personalities are involved.
But again, you talk about wild swings, and I'm pointing out that the lottery could mean wild swings within a single sitting of the Court. It only would make that problem worse.
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:
