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
@indigo8s maybe don't take the words of MAGA idiots so seriously.
The Court restrained, not expanded, the powers of the president, pulling back a president's power to prosecute who he wants.
MSNBC figures seem to be getting that backwards.
Roberts wasn't on the Court in 2000...
Anyway, no, that's not what happened in Bush v Gore. The Court didn't select anything, it simply told a state court to knock it off after the state court tried to interfere in the election.
SCOTUS pulled out of interference, it *refused* to have the courts selecting a winner.
In Bush v Gore Florida was allowed to choose its own winner without judicial interference.
@JBShakerman no, the SCOTUS decision explicitly recognizes the ability to prosecute a former president for illegal actions in office.
If an action is not legal then the ruling doesn't apply to it.
@DeeGLloyd@mastodon.world the Supreme Court decision explicitly recognizes bribery and the ability to prosecute former presidents.
Folks passing around headlines about legalizing bribery are falling for sensationalism that gets the story backwards.
@futurebird perhaps.
Though it looks like Weiss was Senate-confirmed so the issue may not apply to him.
You say you literally can not replace #Biden, and then you talk about how the replacement can be done :)
OF COURSE you can replace Biden at this point.
Trump is so unpopular that there's a good chance the best way to beat him is to nominate nearly anyone better than Biden.
There's on sense fretting about Trump making court challenges. They'd be laughed out just as easily as his election challenges were laughed out.
@Awoke@mastodon.social
What new powers?
This Court has been all about dialing back the powers of the president, not making new ones, which will be pretty nice should the election go badly.
He laid out how it was related:
"I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States." -Thomas
The question of immunity was about the administration inappropriately prosecuting people and he highlighted another way the prosecution might have been inappropriate.
@TCatInReality Biden has no power to un-appoint a justice.
Only Congress can remove a justice from the Court.
@DemocracyMattersALot
@SenatorMoobs Congress didn't give the Court the power to choose which cases it takes.
That choice is inherent in having the independent judicial branch.
And it's a really good power to have! The Court should not be required to rule on cases that haven't been fully explored yet, or cases where the lower court acted reasonably but not absolutely correctly.
@jimhightower except that so many of the Supreme Court decisions this term were focused on restraining power, including the Court's own.
It hasn't been a power grab. It's been the exact opposite, the pushing back against power structures, insisting that Congress be acknowledged, restraining the power to prosecute, etc.
@BohemianPeasant but SCOTUS has been emphatically pressing the government to enforce the laws Congress has made.
That's the whole point of so many of their opinions this term.
@SteveThompson
@JustOneMoreThing@mindly.social either party is welcome to provide a different option at any point.
There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that both of these candidates are awful and pressing either party to provide someone better, and if they do they'd probably win the election.
@interfluidity how do you get to that conclusion?
The decision merely points out that in support of our civil liberties the Constitutional order limits the ability for presidents to prosecute.
@realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @Hyolobrika
@interfluidity Yeah exactly, and that's what the court said.
Keep in mind that it is entirely within the right of Congress to impeach and Biden over things he shouldn't have done, legal or illegal, but so long as he was operating within the bounds of what the law says he could do, the next president cannot go after him.
This Supreme Court ruling is actually extremely common sense and honestly kind of boring, and yet people are sensationalizing it way out of bounds of what it actually said.
But that's just normal. That's just the state of journalism these days, they flat out say things that are contradicted by the primary record, and they get away with it.
@realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @Hyolobrika
@deborahh It wasn't so much extreme as it was simply unrealistic.
Sotomayor was off in a different world talking about things based on facts that aren't actually true and fighting a bunch of straw men arguments that aren't on the table.
It's not really extreme, it's just that she apparently has no idea what's going on and so she's off writing these fictions.
I don't know if that's better or worse, but either way she's a joke on the Supreme Court.
@realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social this prevents Trump from prosecuting Biden over legal actions that he took.
Biden would still be susceptible to prosecution over illegal actions, just as this ruling says Trump is susceptible to prosecution over his illegal actions.
But I would mainly focus on how this prevents Trump from prosecuting Biden over things like border policy since so many Republicans are chomping at the bit to haul him into court over that specifically.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @Hyolobrika
@realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
If you're fine with administration prosecuting anyone, well, that's just the sort of thing that I'm going to simply disagree with.
Personally I don't think we should allow presidents, including Trump, to go after their enemies with unfounded prosecutions.
But that's just me.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @Hyolobrika
It doesn't matter who it's written by, if It's not possible it's not possible.
You say it's written by 20 people Trump appointed in his first term, but as we saw, Trump appointed a whole lot of idiots. People too stupid to know how the government worked. So why in the world would we care what those idiots have to say?
They don't know how the government works, they're too stupid to know that they're writing nonsense, let's just laugh at them because their ideas don't work in the real world. They won't be able to do what they want to do because they are too stupid to know that the government was specifically set up to prevent that kind of idiocy.
If anything, we help empower it by taking it seriously. We need to be laughing it right off the board because it's really just that out of touch with reality and what's possible.
It's like, if someone says they are going to take on the airline industry by telling people to flap their arms real fast to fly from city to city, you wouldn't take that seriously. Same thing here. These morons don't know how the government works, so apparently they don't know that what they are proposing will not and cannot be implemented.
@realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
I might be repeating myself, I can't keep track, but when people talk about this being about immunity, too often they don't specify immunity from what.
This is not immunity from punishment. This is immunity from prosecution.
The accused could always go through the whole process, go through the prosecution go through trial get convicted and then appeal and go through the case involved in the appeal. That doesn't really change here.
What changes here is that the court clarified that you can't even prosecute someone, much less bring them to trial. This clarifies that a person accused without legal basis doesn't have to go through the whole rigmarole, they can immediately halt all of the proceedings at the beginning, with needing to go through the whole thing to get to appeals.
So that's why I say this nips it in the bud. And that's the major result.
This whole thing was purely procedural. And it clarified the procedure of avoiding a legally invalid prosecution, before court.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @Hyolobrika
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:
