volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@Gregvan except that's not really what's happening in cases like this.

It's not about "them" choosing the Christian religion to promote, they aren't making the choice in the first place, the question is whether they can block the Christian religion when other people choose to promote it.

That distinction is critical.

@NewsDesk @npr

@jpaskaruk I think you are conflating technical problems with social problems, and they really are two completely separate domains that need to be addressed separately.

It's the old thing where technical solutions don't solve social problems well, and vice versa.

But it sounds like you're lumping them all together.

@enbrown.bsky.social I think it's the frustration of seeing energetic people with the best of intentions trying to make the world a better place, even as they are factually misinformed and so their efforts are going the wrong direction.

@knutson_brain

The problem is, this has it backwards: Congress already made a bunch of stuff illegal, so it doesn't make sense to pass new laws to protect all judges from things that the rest of us are still required to do.

Just because you're a judge doesn't mean you're above the law. In fact, I would say it's the opposite.

@sccdp

@CuriousMagpie The headline is missing context, though.

She said that if Supreme Court justices actually break the law, yeah, they're subject to arrest for doing so.

She was not talking about arresting them over their lawful work as is suggested, but yeah, if a Supreme Court Justice shoplifts, they are subject to arrest.

It's not that crazy a statement!

@maeve But he already has hesitated, so like so many other statements coming out of this administration, this is nonsense.

@MusiqueNow I mean, he already has though...

So this sounds like somebody you should probably shouldn't listen to.

@Wileymiller If you're talking about the US system, you have that backwards.

The US system emphatically and actively is designed to keep that kind of authority away from the courts. We don't give the courts that authority to override democratic processes.

And so enforcing court orders is emphatically left to the Congress. We elect the people that we want to handle that enforcement.

This is a core part of separation of powers in the US system.

@ben any chance they're specifically mentioning you in their posts?

@cwarzel.bsky.social don't discount the possibility that they are, in fact, overreacting!

There actually is a ton of overreaction around, and part of the problem is that overreaction to one thing can mask more pressing problems elsewhere.

But that's an understandable thing, where a group of likeminded folks build up each others' perceptions, skewing them without a skeptical, balancing force.

@cwarzel.bsky.social of course.

This administration is extremely responsive to the sentimentality of its base, and this plays into it.

@JohannesReetz

Not much the US citizen can do? US citizens elected these congresspeople who are enabling the situation. Maybe US citizens have done enough!

But to be serious, if you don't like what's happening then work to oust your congresspeople. That's the way this works.

US citizens can at the least stop reelecting the congresspeople who are failing to change the direction of the federal government.
@georgetakei

@Wileymiller it's important to emphasize that no, there's not much the court can do because it's the wrong branch of government: it's Congress, not the Court, that's authorized to, and accountable to voters for, doing what they determine is needed with regard to the executive.

This isn't the end of democracy in the country. It IS democracy in the country. We elected congresspeople who are enabling all of this, so democracy is guiding this whole thing.

@old_hippie that's the opposite of what they ruled.

SCOTUS invited the judicial branch to scrutinize presidential actions for whether they are legal and thus part of his duties.

@yuhasz01

@Nonilex just because you personally haven't heard it doesn't mean there hasn't been a mention of it. It just means your window to the world may be a bit narrow.

YES, conservative media has not only mentioned but actually harped on it.

The White House generally follows whatever is going around the media. It doesn't lead; it parrots conservative memes.

@kgw well there's not much SCOTUS can do. They have intentionally limited authority.

The US system is designed so that it's Congress, not the judicial branch, that has authority to respond to cases like this.

But so far we're letting Congress defer to the executive, especially by letting them pass the buck to the Court.

@Nonilex it's not the Justices being played for fools. They know exactly what's going on.

But they also have intentionally limited jurisdiction and authority. In the US system separation of powers limits what they can do, regardless of the motives of those arguing before them.

In the end the proper response to this goes through Congress, not the SCOTUS. We're ALL being played for fools when we don't recognize that.

@bespacific there is another reason: we keep electing congresspeople who run based on false claims about how the US government functions.

It's a simple explanation. No need for any conspiratorial talk, just politicians lying for reelection.

Occam's Razor would have us consider that ahead of simulation theory... and have us stop accepting politicians saying things that run afoul of basic civics.

@BLTpizza