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
@Hyolobrika well, they explained at length, but some key quotes may be:
"The parties before us do not dispute that a former President can be subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts committed while in office."
"If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so."
The ruling is absolutely clear: if the president subverts laws he is prosecutable.
This case was never about subversion of laws, though a lot of loudmouths claimed (and claim) otherwise.
@dcdeejay where do you see a statute authorizing the president to kill all of the justices?
Without such legal authority, SCOTUS says it wouldn't be official.
@KimPerales that's not an accurate description of what the ruling said, though.
If anything, the end of Chevron STRENGTHENS the administrative state by pushing it to be on more solid, more sustainable ground, where different judges won't be secondguessing and reversing regs based on perceptions of ambiguity and reasonableness.
Remember, Chevron is called that because it was a case that ruled in favor of the petro corporation. That should say a lot!
@Crystal_Fish_Caves keep in mind that Biden's legal strategies are what lead to the ruling in the first place.
The prosecutors didn't have to go into those weeds to charge and try Trump. They made the decision to do that, and the Supreme Court ruling emphasized it.
What could Biden do? He could have never gone this route in the first place, charge Trump with things clearly outside of official business, and this could all have been done by now.
@AltonDooley EXACTLY, and that's exactly what the Supreme Court ruling tried to emphasize, that so many people are missing.
SCOTUS emphasized in their opinion that subversion of laws is no grounds for immunity. The president only has immunity from prosecution for actually legal things.
So many don't understand what this case was about, since there was so much misreporting about it.
Right, but if you're not going to get such an amendment passed, that's reflective of the popular rejection of this idea that the sky is falling over this opinion.
(And that's setting aside that the proposed amendment misunderstands what the Supreme Court actually ruled)
There isn't support to pass the amendment because the general public hasn't been compelled to demand it.
Never forget the role of the public here.
@davidaugust
@david1 he's often described as an institutionalist, putting weight on the operation of the Court even above and beyond the more doctrinal approaches you list.
But that includes being more concerned with the Court than any party.
There's plenty to criticize the guy over, but his work on the Court doesn't really match the idea that he's a partisan Republican if you read through his opinions and processes.
@hasani no. The Supreme Court has no say over the Legislative branch's impeachment prerogative.
They have no ability to make such a nullification.
@stylinstainless how do you feel about Putin's cabinet Picks? You seem to know a lot about him.
@TotalSonic we can't address the problems of homelessness and helping homeless people if we are busy arguing that criminalizing sleeping in certain places is criminalizing homelessness.
It's not.
So people arguing that clearly factually false statement are not going to get much purchase as they try to promote their causes.
It's a counterproductive position to take because instead of getting together behind helping the homeless instead you end up fighting about how factually incorrect it is.
@TotalSonic nobody is criminalizing homelessness.
If you frame it that way you're not helping, you're just promoting this idea that most people know is false.
@marynelson8 kind of a ignore the man behind the curtain sort of a response, yeah?
@JPummil they didn't.
That's not what happened at all.
If you want to shore up the laws on this, that's fine, look at Congress to enact legislation. Not to the Supreme Court.
@stylinstainless how do you figure?
From complaints over executive performance through legal issues, I don't know how you can say that.
@stylinstainless have you noticed how the people that Biden surrounds himself are actually kind of dumb?
No, both of these guys are ridiculous and really unqualified. Both of those two are just not worth voting for, even based on the idiots they surround themselves with.
@IgnatiusJReilly is it Biden?
Because I was talking about Biden.
@alan but again I'm trying to highlight that it's not just about how much taxes are cut or how many new services are provided, It's about how my specific representative made either intelligent or bone-headed votes in his job to provide for those.
So often I hear friends of mine complaining about some governmental policy while at the same time they support and talk about voting for the representative who cast his vote for the thing that they are complaining about.
They should be kicking that guy to the curb. He voted wrong. He voted against the interests of his constituents. But, the friends will be so focused on the faction that they let him off the hook. He escapes accountability by hiding in faction.
We need to be promoting the idea of people looking at how their representatives actually vote, and then holding them accountable for it.
Too often the focus on faction lets representatives escape accountability as it is, and you're talking about making that even worse.
@paka yep, and I've faced such shortages.
@manton keep in mind that expansion of the court would exacerbate a lot of the things that people are complaining about these days.
You think it takes a long time to issue an opinion with only this number of justices? It would exponentially increase the workload as more are added, as they all have to send opinions back and forth to negotiate with each other over the opinions they are releasing.
@jacobhyphenated That's not true at all.
The executive branch is and has always been free to take Trump to trial under other legal theories.
That they chose this theory that will take time for the court to resolve falls entirely on them. They could have changed course at any point.
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:
