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
@tawtovo What the SCOTUS ruled was that a state court could not make such rulings on federal law. It required some federal official to make the finding of federal law.
The state court's ruling was out of line. It was welcome to rule on state law, of course, but not on federal law.
So the CO court's finding was simply invalid and moot.
BUT, Congress is welcome to make that ruling, that that's a great place to adjudicate this, through the Electoral Count Act, as EC ballots are counted on Jan 6th.
Unfortunately, it's politically problematic for politicians to even recognize that possibility, so they won't talk about it.
It's a GREAT question, and the answer is, January 6th.
At that point Congress will convene to determine whether to accept EC ballots, including whether the votes are valid. THAT is the time to adjudicate this question, not in state courts.
Unfortunately, I fully expect that the people we elected to Congress will fail to do their jobs and will just rubber stamp the reported results.
No, that's not how it works.
A department that's not recognized by law is not a department, period. Any time a department wants to do something, it is asked, where does your department appear in law? And if they can't point to law, the department effectively doesn't exist.
This isn't about being above the law or below the law. The law just doesn't care about departments that aren't in it.
I believe even Trump's people themselves have recognized this and admitted that DOGE isn't a real department.
A president simply has no choice in this.
Always remember that senators can end a filibuster regardless of what the majority leader wants. At any point senators can go to the floor and get on with it.
McConnell might be known for filibuster, but that's key: his role was to be a scapegoat, to be known for the thing that the rest of the chamber set up.
A whole lot of powerful senators ducked accountability by blaming McConnell for their own choices, and we really need to call attention to that.
@darulharb in his posturing Vivek doesn't seem to note that Chevron cuts both ways, also preventing them from cutting legally promoted regulations.
(Honestly I can never tell if Vivek really is posturing or if he really doesn't know/doesn't care about how the US government actually works)
But then, this whole DOGE thing is a publicity stunt. It doesn't really matter.
#Gaetz suspiciously resigned from the House immediately, which was unusual, and faces an uphill climb to be approved by the Senate.
Honestly, this sounds like a negotiated way to get him to go away, since he was likely to continue screwing things up in the #House.
The idea is that instead of being drummed out in disgrace after the investigations show what a scumbag he is, officially, he'll be able to pretend to be a martyr after his nomination fails.
No, that's not the precedent.
Presidents are absolutely not above the law. It's just that they don't really prosecute themselves, so other agencies at other times have to do it.
For example, Congress can hold presidents accountable for illegal behavior right away, and state prosecutors can go after them in civil court at any point. Clinton is the key example of that.
Presidents are never above the law. The tricky bit is going to the correct one to hold them accountable.
@jaggedrobotpubes mainstream Republicans have actively and vociferously rejected project 2025...
@sir_rob that is incorrect.
Under normal procedure cabinet positions require Senate confirmation.
People have been talking about loopholes, but meh, in general confirmation is needed.
@GluedToTheScreen this comes across as the guy finding an exit path to get out of the investigations.
The confirmation step doesn't really matter, he just wants to derail the house investigations into his background, so regardless of whether he is confirmed, he's out.
US Politics
@chris_spackman I mean, I got that impression from Harris herself.
@charvaka What examples can you give?
Honestly, this sounds like a way to get rid of the guy so he's not a thorn in the legislative process anymore.
@mhjohnson I don't think that's it.
Harris's campaign absolutely melted down in the last 2 weeks, on its own accord. It could have kept going with whether it was going with, but it didn't, it just turned into a large bowl of jello.
I think that's where it went wrong.
It was a close race the whole time, and Harris just never had it in her to either win decisively... or it turns out cross the finish line.
Whatever talking about Elon always start by remembering that he is a troll.
How did he know? Why in the world do you think he knew? Why assume that? There's a very large chance that he was just trolling everybody, because that is the persona that he wears these days.
But then, you're giving him the attention with this post that he wants.
So I guess it worked.
@cspcypher just don't forget that fake government departments are fake, they can't hurt you.
They just play pretend.
Skimming this article, it strikes me as a pretty good survey of how the state of popular politics in the US ended in a #Trump election.
It captures #Democrats being out of touch and #Republicans being fed up and #Harris running a bad campaign, one that really channeled that out-of-touch-ness.
Or, at least, this confirms my baises :) reflects my perception on the whole thing.
But those themes seem to be repeated over and over through quote after quote.
‘Democrats presented no alternative’: US voters on Trump’s win and where Harris went wrong https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/12/voter-re...
@ginaintheburg That's not quite what happened.
In NLRB v Canning the SCOTUS didn't limit the president's power to make recess appointments but rather it pointed out that Obama had made recess appointments without a recess.
Big difference.
Trump isn't wanting to break a rule here. Exactly the opposite: he's talking about applying the rule correctly.
@ginaintheburg That's not quite what happened.
In NLRB v Canning the SCOTUS didn't limit the president's power to make recess appointments but rather it pointed out that Obama had made recess appointments without a recess.
Big difference.
Trump isn't wanting to break a rule here. Exactly the opposite: he's talking about applying the rule correctly.
@specwill @specwill sounds like you're missing that Chevron allowed agencies to do harm without legislative approval.
This kind of deference allowed one administration to undo the good of the past administration, it allowed one administration to do a bunch of harm to undo the good that the last administration did.
And no, it absolutely does not mean that every single fiddly little thing needs to be legislated. It just means that legislatures have to give permission to regulate those fiddly things, but once the permission is given, go for it.
It sounds like whoever you're listening to on this topic has been misleading you.
@moira Elon Musk is Trump's most important ally? What are you talking about?
And even if he was, which is a nutty thing to say, even if he was the most important ally, he's also well known for being an utter troll, so why in the world would you take anything he says seriously?
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:
