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
@kwheaton I also simply think that fair or not, Biden's popularity is so low that he's one of the few candidates who might lose to Trump.
I've long felt that either party could claim the win simply by choosing a different candidate. Just about any different candidate.
Democrats could win if they choose a candidate other than Biden, so the question is, what is their priority? Winning the election or something else?
@lakelady just goes to highlight that the focus needs to be on winning over fellow voters, bringing them over to the right side, rather than working against them year after year.
@jstatepost articles like these misunderstand the Court's job in the US government.
The Court isn't supposed to be ruling on matters of science, but rather on matters of law.
The Court emphatically does not have the expertise to judge matters of science, and it is aware of that, which is why it avoids wading into those waters, leaving those decisions up to others who actually do have the expertise.
And the example from the article serves to illustrate why that's so important.
The questions before the Court are matters of what the laws say, not what science says. Presumably Congress will have waded through the science and come to the best laws based on that. The Court, then, is to promote those laws under the assumption that they've followed the science.
So it's not that the Court rejects science. Rather, if anything it attempts to bolster science by assuming that the laws it promotes themselves represent the science.
To do otherwise, THAT would be the rejection of science.
@laurahelmuth
@michael_martinez oh, it's the opposite: the law REQUIRES the money to be used for other purposes.
By law Social Security revenues must be deposited into the Treasury just like all other tax collections, where it gets spent just like all other revenues.
In addition, I always encourage people who are interested to read directly from Supreme Court decisions themselves, since there's so much misreporting on what they say.
In the decision the Court is actually *rolling back* the power of the judicial branch since under Chevron it was up to judges to decide things like what constituted ambiguous and reasonable.
This ruling takes judges out of that process, putting it back in the hands of the Legislative and Executive Branches.
@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
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:
