volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@Another ::shrug:: it's not really a failure if it's within expectations.

At this point in the program they go into it saying the thing might explode, so they define success as basically getting it off the ground. Anything more is bonus.

@Nonilex no, those justices don't believe presidents are above the law or doubt their own power.

They're emphatically saying everyone, including the president and lower courts, must abide by the law.

The majority seemed to be getting it wrong.

If anything, it's the majority who don't believe in their own power to reverse an error from the lower court.

@realcaseyrollins @nicholas

It literally is part of the executive branch.

You're talking about executive branch functions but not thinking they're part of the executive branch?

@MikeDunnAuthor again, that's the opposite of what the Court did.

The Court shored up the EPA giving its orders more teeth by emphasizing the legal basis for its actions.

The EPA isn't eviscerated by this ruling; it's buttressed and amplified through legal mandate.

@EngOnDemand seems like he has been pretty consistent, the mineral deal is pretty secondary to him compared to wanting to keep his country protected from Russia.

He's not changing his mind, he's just not interested in these these pointless deals when they fall apart.

@MikeDunnAuthor No, it's the exact opposite.

The CWA didn't authorize what the EPA was doing, and maybe it should! But it didn't. The people we elected decided not to cover that. The court respected the decision of the people that we elected.

The court didn't eviscerate the clean water act, it emphasized the clean water act, what it said and what it didn't say.

In the future maybe we'll elect people that will change the CWA, and at that point we really need the court to continue to do what it just did and emphasize what the law says.

@mmasnick.bsky.social you haven't? I have.

There have been a few addresses, news reports, governmental actions, etc about it.

I don't agree with it, but that you haven't heard one word about it just makes me think you need better news sources.

@mmasnick.bsky.social you haven't? I have.

There have been a few addresses, news reports, governmental actions, etc about it.

I don't agree with it, but that you haven't heard one word about it just makes me think you need better news sources.

@evoterra wrong branch of government.

This was a law passed by Congress, by the congresspeople we elected. We should stop reelecting them.

@MikeDunnAuthor It's not a right-wing SCOTUS but rather one that respects the laws passed by Congress regardless of political leanings.

So we elected congresspeople that passed certain legislation that might not have been for the best. Fine, let's dump them and elect better representatives who won't do that, who will fix the laws.

But that's not up to the court. That's up to us.

@sfbaykeeper No that gets it backwards.

They didn't weaken the act, they strengthened it by emphasizing what it actually says.

If Congress wants to change the act then they absolutely can. And under this philosophy the changes will be buttressed by court rulings.

The act just didn't say what some people thought it should say.

@breedlov Well, if people are willing to pay it...

Kind of dumb to pay that much to dine with the jerk, but apparently some are into it.

@watch4thedrop it just goes to show this story about majorities is just not real.

That's just not how the court works, it never has been.

@aselrod.bsky.social

But the thing is, how exactly is he going to do it?

He can talk all he wants about wanting to flap his arms and fly around the room, but unless there's an actual mechanism for doing it on the table it's just talk, no matter how much talk it is.

We should talk about the actual mechanism, not the blather that he spews out.

@breedlov Oh no, not at all. You're giving Trump too much credit.

Trump isn't far right. He's old, his mind is gone, and as he circles the drain he's especially short on self-control.

@yukiame notice, if you will, how JD Vance tends to use very simple words even when talking about big picture issues.

He gets it.

@breedlov Trump's awful, but let's not confuse inflation for what it's not.

Inflation is a problem with the money supply, not with policy choices. Prices go up and down based on dumb political choices, but that isn't necessarily inflation, and to confuse the two can even let politicians escape accountability.

@stevevladeck.bsky.social Well right, because that's just how the system is set up.

@CharlieMcHenry No, that's not what they ruled at all.

I don't know who is telling you this, but if you read the actual opinion, that's not what they said. Somebody is lying to you and you should stop believing them.