volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@jwcph follow the money, though:

Often enough those businesses are just proxies for the people. We actually LIKE some of this stuff, and businesses are just happy to sell us what we want.

@GreenRoc

Trump often neither knows nor cares about stuff like this.

We've seen the leaks and events coming out of the administration showing that the folks around him call most of the shots, and organize stuff like this, while Trump is only interested in the flashy, headline stuff that gets him personal attention.

@servelan

@stevevladeck.bsky.social

It's a false dichotomy, though:

It's not merely a choice between putting all the eggs in one convenient basket, with its own problems, vs a slow trudge toward resolution through splintered courts.

The third option is better: reforming the judicial system so that it's better able to resolve those disputes quickly without so much wheel reinvention.

And so that seems healthier for the system anyway.

@Nonilex according to people involved, no, the connection to Hale-Cusanelli wasn't particularly key.

Much more important were things like his refusal to fully cooperate with the Senate process.

He stick his thumb in the eyes of those he needed to support him, so they dumped him.

@bettycjung.bsky.social because the protections were a bit sensationalistic, and unscientific, and generally not in keeping with good practices.

The regulations didn't actually increase protections very much, but they did make it harder to provide good drinking water to people.

@crk5 or like telling people to look both ways before they cross the street so they don't get hit by a car.

It doesn't mean it's not practical advice.

@mstarace What? The tax cuts they are talking about renewing are not for the wealthy, and way back then Republicans were criticized over how these tax cuts for the non-wealthy had an expiration date.

There's a lot of historical revisionism in this reporting.

Yes, Republicans have a problem, but it's not that as the prior reporting showed.

@Klaxun That's not how the legislation would work, though, so they aren't fighting for your right to healthcare.

Mother Jones is misleading as usual.

@ronsparks.bsky.social@bsky.brid.gy No, that's not what the Supreme Court granted. In fact they emphatically denied Trump's request for that kind of immunity.

Stories like this get the ruling exactly backwards.

The Supreme Court not only denied Trump's request for near total immunity, but it sent the case back for more processing so that he could be found guilty.

We really need to counter misinformation about this case.

@vij when there's a vacancy and a sense that the senators we've elected would approve the nomination.

@Nonilex kind of a destroy it to save it approach?

It explicitly turned the question political as a warning to all who have tried to turn it political?

@GetMisch people saying we're in a constitutional crisis tend not to actually understand how the constitutional system works.

This is not a crisis, it's how the system was set up. The constitutional role here goes to the congresspeople we elect, not the courts, to follow up on these issues.

This is how it's supposed to work, and it's up to us now to hold our congresspeople accountable for acting as we want them to.

@janhoglund except no, the Court refused to grant Trump the immunity he sought, and it sent his case back to the lower court for further processing.

That story gets the ruling exactly backwards.

@ericmacknight Well we keep electing hapless people to Congress, so this is what we get.

Honestly, the story of this moment is one of the people that we have elected and reelected to Congress. Trump is doing things that were authorized by Congress or tolerated by Congress, and that's our fault for electing these idiots.

And the worst part is that they were idiotic, and we looked at their track records and decided, yes, we should re-elect these people.

Trump is just a symptom of our deciding to reelect idiots to Congress, and that story is not appreciated enough.

@light

Hmmm. I actually would disagree with this statement for a very practical reason.

Due process is about giving people the opportunities for defense that the consensus has judged to be right. It's really more about maintaining an orderly system without surprises that serve society, to maintain the perceived legitimacy of the system to avoid the alternative, anarchy and vigilantism.

Due process is for being able to tell other members of society that the right steps have been taken so that other members don't need to get violent on their own.

That's the real danger of the way some people, lately US conservatives, undermine the concept of due process: they are endangering themselves when they don't understand how important it really is to their own safety, and to the communities and society that they value so strongly.

@interfluidity

@light Oh I personally really dislike the abbreviation. There are semantic issues with abbreviating something like that, it either in terms of computer science stuff or in terms of accessibility, the abbreviation is something I avoid.

A it's not exactly a hill I'm willing to die on, but one I'll stick to rather than go against those minor issues.

@byteseu why is that hard to believe?

Neither one is particularly any of your business, so it's kind of dumb to marvel at the fact that you haven't been able to demand them.

@walterolson.bsky.social they didn't fail the test.

Yes, the people we elected to Congress did say that a president can unilaterally invent an emergency. That was a dumb thing in my opinion, but that's what the people we elected decided.

And so it's not a failure on Wednesday. Rather it was successfully supporting a governmental institution that I personally find really stupid, but we elected these people so I guess the larger public is good with it.

It wasn't a failure: it was a successful democracy. Yay democracy.

@anthony instances like qoto forego idiocy of microblogging.

Just pick an instance without the constraints of character limits.