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
@Chrisblue we need to be clear that the Supreme Court didn't block expanded protections as this says.
Instead, it declined to get involved as the cases worked their way through lower courts on an expedited basis.
@odaraia but that's missing the argument.
It's not about whether or not to enforce Title IX but a dispute over what Title IX says in the first place.
The courts (this was really about lower courts, not Supreme) seek to ENFORCE Title IX by blocking Biden from, as they see it, misinterpreting it.
Congress is free to revise Title IX, so make sure you elect effective representatives.
Meanwhile, the courts will respect that democratic process by insisting that Biden follow the law passed by Congress.
@TCatInReality no, it doesn't take four years.
If a president is screwing up then he can be impeached within a day. IF we elect representatives willing to do the job.
So it all comes back to focusing on electing better representatives and kicking out the reps who are screwing it up.
In the US system they're there to represent the people.
@hansbot not a problem: if the accused is standing there with a bloody knife then it doesn't matter what his motives were.
That's the point: did he do it? Then motives don't matter in the first place.
@hansbot No, the Supreme Court decision did not kneecap Federal prosecutors power to go after corrupt government officials.
The Supreme Court in their ruling specifically went out of their way to say that prosecution of corruption is absolutely on the table. In fact, the ruling actively called for the prosecution of corruption.
So we really need to push back against this sort of misinformation.
@HamonWry I mean, the best way to do that is to push back on the lies that folks like Harris are telling about what the Supreme Court is actually doing and saying.
They keep putting out this propaganda and then insisting that they need more power so they can fix problems that don't actually exist, based on misinformation that's easily debunked by just reading the Supreme Court opinions directly from the source.
The game here is, first they put out misinformation that undermines public faith in the Supreme Court, and then they offer to the public that they'll fix it, if only we give them more power.
You see the conflict of interest here.
@TCatInReality but this doesn't respond to what the Supreme Court actually ruled.
It accepts this straw man, this boogeyman, that's been set up and asks us to throw a bunch of stuff into the air to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist because the Supreme Court ruling doesn't actually say what they claim it says.
But never mind that.
This is people in powerful positions taking advantage of public misinformation to reinforce their positions. We need to push back against it.
@1dalm The important part is not to act like Air Force is some independent entity. It follows the orders of the president, It works for the president.
There's this weird story that this is Air Force versus EPA, but both of them are executive branch entities, both answering to the same president. So they're on the same side, and we need to hold the president accountable for what they both do.
If Biden wants the Air Force to clean up PFAS then he would tell them to do it. If it doesn't get done, that's on Biden's head.
And we need to hold him accountable for it.
@TexasObserver I mean, that's not the role of the courts. The courts would be shirking their jobs if they had ruled otherwise.
It's the wrong branch of government to deal with these issues.
USPolitics
@ppatel he has spent a lot of time attacking people other than white men.
Firstly, reality is there is no independance. Whether you like it or not, the reality that we are living in, the way the US government is structured, the DOJ doesn't have its own branch. It is by definition dependent on the president, subservient to the president.
That's just part of the fundamental structure of the US government, and it's important to recognize that reality.
But moving on, you bring up Trump, and I rush to emphasize that Trump got away with skirting responsibility for DOJ actions by saying they are independent. We should have emphasized that Trump was responsible for all the things that even his own supporters are complaining about!
Even when it comes to Trump, he's a great example of how the notion of an independent DOJ allows presidents to escape responsibility and accountability.
Had Trump been held accountable for the actions of his DOJ we might not be facing his possible reelection today.
@TCatInReality Why?
What good comes from a norm that allows a powerful person to escape accountability?
@iag2u that causes a lot of problems, not the least of which is, what if two different panels comes to different conclusions?
There is tremendous value in the US system that there is only one Supreme Court, not rolls of dice providing different Courts.
@ppatel maybe they're just not that interesting.
@old_hippie but that sort of begs the question.
We need to be deciding whether to nominate Harris based on her positions and likelihood of winning the election, and that's going to involve facing the music.
If we don't see how well she performs before the convention we could end up nominating someone who'll bomb after it's too late.
@TCatInReality
I'd go from the other direction: we should demand that Biden do his job, and hold him accountable for failing to do it, and use this as a great opportunity to show the public how dumb that norm is in the first place.
I'd approach it as ending the practice of allowing presidents to shirk accountability by hiding behind that norm.
@iag2u if you double the Supreme Court then things would take LONGER to resolve as that means more justices trading more briefs back and forth to come to consensus.
@DoesntExist@mastodon.social the EPA says Congress intended the agency to take these actions, right?
Well, if the EPA is correct, then the Supreme Court ruling SUPPORTS the agency's orders, reinforcing them and even mandating them.
All the Court said was that administrations must follow the law. If EPA is right about its legal standing, then it could cite the Supreme Court just as well.
@nathans don't forget that ending the filibuster is a double-edged sword, as it would allow Republicans to do the same things.
After all, Democrats' end of the judicial filibuster opened the door to Republicans appointing the judges that got us to where we are today.
@ShutterbugDoug they're part of the same government.
No need for an EPA order. If the president wants the cleanup done, he could simply direct that it be done.
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:
