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
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world The key is not to give presidents the authority to do bad things.
It doesn't really matter WHY a president is doing something. If a president is saving the environment through bad motives, well, he's saving the environment!
The US government design was based on the idea that everybody was going to operate selfishly. That's really the core of checks and balances. That's why we pay people and we don't just trust in their angelic motivations.
We want want incentives to be set up such that selfish motives result in positive outcomes. If the law allows presidents to do bad things, then we need to fix the laws.
@AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @Hyolobrika @interfluidity
@Methylcobalamin always keep in mind that all of this sensationalism about project 2025, well, there's no authority to actually do the things it's talking about.
So just ignore it.
Seriously, I don't know if they believe they can do this stuff or if they are just dreaming, but either way, it's not going to happen, because our entire government is set up to refuse that sort of action.
There is so much focus on motive, but the thing is, the law so often doesn't really care about motive, and that's part of the point.
We have law that gives presidents authorization to act regardless of why they are acting. Maybe we should change those laws. Maybe we should change the law to consider motive, although I would say that is a really thorny direction to go, but that's what we have right now.
The Supreme Court is pointing out that our democratic process produced law that doesn't care about motive. The Supreme Court is merely respecting that outcome.
Again, we can reform that if we want. We can change the law if we want. It would be a democratic process that in some cases involves constitutional amendment, but we have that power.
In the end, until we make that change, though, this is the law. The Supreme Court is merely working with what we have today, not how you or I might want the law to be.
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @Hyolobrika
@SETSystems@defcon.social
The Supreme Court decision specifically addressed prosecution for bribery in footnote 3. Spoiler: nope, the Court did not say bribery is OK, and it even sketched out rules for prosecuting bribery.
NYTimes often gets legal stuff wrong.
@samohTmaS yep, the 50 states are 50 sovereigns, with their own laws, and there's a problem here in that a Colorado judge effectively broke the state's own laws, that it passed as its own sovereign right.
There is a federal right that each of us be treated as per law, including state law.
Colorado was perfectly able to kick Trump off the ballot according to its own laws, but that didn't happen in this case.
It is in recognition and support of state sovereignty that the state laws are to be respected.
Except that this case and its resolution was *itself* an exercise of accountability against an executive that was engaging in faulty prosecution.
To ignore the overstepping of the Biden administration here, THAT would have been letting the executive go without accountability.
The Supreme Court decision here made clear that former presidents are still to be held accountable for following the law, are still subject to prosecution for lawlessness.
It's just that, the current president too has to be subject to law in his decisions to bring down the hammer of prosecution on civilians.
That's the opposite of what SCOTUS said in their opinion.
@interfluidity people keep saying "absolute immunity" without finishing the phrase.
It's absolute immunity *from invalid prosecution*.
The Court and the parties before the Court are all clear that it's perfectly fine to prosecute a former president--he has no immunity at all from prosecution if the charges are valid.
@interfluidity that IS a form of immunity!
So that's all this is, just a statement that courts must throw out invalid (malicious or otherwise faulty) prosecution upon first contact.
Again, if they were acting illegally then this ruling doesn't protect them.
This ruling only provides protection from prosecution over legal actions.
@interfluidity sure acquittal is A remedy, but there's nothing particularly unique about getting the case thrown out before trial based on the unlawful prosecution.
It's a practical way to deal with an overreaching administration, one that saves all the time and expense of going through a trial that was inappropriate in the first place.
Heck, for a prosecutor to approach the courts with an unlawful process is itself a pretty big problem, that the courts recognize in cases like these!
Yeah, the administration could haul a person through an unlawful process and the person can appeal after... but why?
Here's the ruling. Again, that's not what the court ruled.
What it said was merely that a state can't rule on federal law without some sort of federal permission, or federal process, or something on the federal level.
The tail can't wag the dog.
Whether or not 14 3 is self-enforcing is irrelevant because it's a federal, not state, question.
It was handled in the wrong court.
@batkaren we've already seen originalists reject that sort of thinking as they didn't stick to muskets.
BBC is reporting that #Democrats are huddling to decide whether to ask #Biden to step aside as presumptive nominee.
The thing is, that's not really up to Biden. The party sets its own rules, and it can nominate whomever it wants. They don't need Biden's permission.
The thing I find funniest, though, is that it's like politely asking #Trump to leave the presidency after he lost the election.
No, that's not how this works. We don't ask; we tell. The Democratic Party will tell Biden if he's the nominee, just as the EC process told Trump that he's no longer going to be president.
It does come across as people hoping they don't have to make tough decisions or take action, though. Or be held accountable for the result.
Much easier just to let the individual choose for himself.
@samohTmaS
that's not what their votes said, though.
You're saying something factually incorrect and talking about punishing justices for things they didn't do.
THAT's the real problem with your theory.
@interfluidity you say there is no reason for that, but the reason for that is staring us in the face: IF a person is being prosecuted for something that's not illegal in the first place, that's a strong call for immunity from improper prosecution!
And that's what this is all about, reigning in an administration that's overreaching in its prosecution.
When people get hung up on the motivation aspect they're missing that there are some things that current law allows regardless of motivation. AND we can democratically change that law if we wish, adding in the motivation aspect.
Other authorizations are more limited, hence the categorical tiers that came out in this ruling.
Regardless, to claim immunity from prosecution the accused would first have to demonstrate that their actions have legal basis.
There's no automatic get out of jail free card here.
@catpants it all gets really complicated because not only do the balloting rules vary from state to state, but remember, they're not voting for president but for electors.
In many cases the state would recognize a change in candidate tomorrow if the Democratic Party announced it. In other cases, the electors being elected by the voting would themselves be party members who would select the new candidate.
Either way, if the party, on behalf of its membership, selects a new candidate, we can move ahead.
@Hyolobrika sorry for the double-reply, but I realized an analogy that might be clarifying:
Trump falsely claims that he was tried and convicted without being charged. That would not have been legal prosecution. Actually it would have been insane.
IF it was true, he could have appealed quickly, *before* trial, to get the prosecution itself declared invalid. Courts could have nipped such insanity in the bud.
Same thing here. This isn't about guilt, but about whether the prosecution itself is legally valid, before trial predicated on potentially invalid legal process.
Unlike Trump's claims, these were reasonable, and the Court said some charges were valid and some weren't. The valid claims can proceed to a valid trial.
@joelion OF COURSE people need immunity from improper prosecution!
Do YOU want this administration (or, heaven forbid, a Trump administration) hauling you into court and making you face trial based on faulty charges? We have protections against that, right? And for good reason?
Well, those protections are exactly immunity from prosecution.
The Court here merely pointed out that some charges were faulty while others were proper, and Trump SHOULD face the court based on the proper charges.
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:
