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
The Court didn't so much side with her as it sided against an action of the lower court. The woman could absolutely still lose her case.
This is how the SCOTUS normally works as an appelate court: it judges lower courts, and here it says the lower court got the process wrong, and it told the lower court to go back and try again.
In other words, this decision leaves it on the table that the woman was simply an asshole.
It mainly comes down to the people we elect to Congress to police this and make sure the US is conducting itself in the ways we want it to go.
If we elect representatives who agree to these military operations and fund programs to make them happen, then contractors will often make them more effective through partnerships with the standing military.
If we don't like it, we need to stop reelecting the representatives who support that direction.
It's so important to hold reps accountable, but too often they get to avoid the hard questions.
@alex_p_roe it wasn't a new power.
Really, people misunderstand the ruling. It wasn't a new power for former presidents but rather a restriction on power for the current president.
What the ruling said was simple: the current president cannot prosecute a former president for legal actions. Importantly, that ruling says Trump can't prosecute Biden either.
The ruling slapped down Biden for exploiting his DoJ against Trump. It also said Trump can't exploit his DoJ again Biden, no matter how much Trump supporters want that.
@GottaLaff note that it is contested whether there was harmful conduct that violated military orders.
The contractor says they did follow orders.
@lillyfinch whether they should be allowed to sue is a much thornier question than pay differences, though.
Also, it's apples and oranges to compare checks written to troops against checks written to companies brought in to provide services. Not only are there differences in benefits that aren't considered there, but the management structures are vastly different.
But mainly, to say they should be allowed to sue here begins to involve all of the state courts in actions on battlefields around the world. It's a really problematic proposal.
When things like this happen, there are better ways to handle it than rushing to the local courts to order feds around.
@alex_p_roe SCOTUS issued its immunity ruling while a Democrat was elected president...
Wow, he really doesn't understand the law as it comes to 2nd Amendment protections. It emphatically has nothing to do with "military-style."
Further, wield the Constitution? No, that's not how the US system works; it's backwards.
To paraphrase the joke, In United States, Constitution wield you!
@HarriettMB meh, same old arguments regardless of who's in the White House.
No reason to reach for a conspiracy theory like that.
@BrideOfLinux Well it's misinformative.
The episode tells a story, but unfortunately a lot of it is just not factually true, compared to the legal and historical records that we have.
It's basically propaganda. Except I think the host actually believes it, unfortunately.
@stevevladeck.bsky.social Well right, that's how the law works, that's how it was written.
The law was written so that these people would be legally protected until they weren't, and the Supreme Court is simply recognizing what the law says, for better or worse.
@upright What are you talking about?
@OccuWorld It's not that they granted Trump's push to revoke temporary legal protections, it's that they called out the lower courts on making mistakes with their own rulings.
That's a huge difference, and is vital to understanding how the US system works.
@GetMisch What? No. That's not how this works, that's not what's happening, this is just conspiratorial reporting.
No, the government isn't even banning things. And so the case isn't about banning things, and if it was, which it wasn't, it could be changed the same way that it would be ruled on.
So this is just a load of nonsense.
The important part here is, you heard Trump say the Federalist society created a system for vetting?
They didn't create that system. Trump is just too damn ignorant to know the difference, and the people around him are taking advantage of that ignorance.
This really reflects on Trump more than anyone else that he doesn't know how any of this stuff works.
@SenatorMoobs It's not bizarre at all if you understand the law and follow courts' history.
It's pretty expected.
I hear people getting caught off guard by this sort of thing, and it really comes down to their not being familiar with these issues.
Given the history and record, the ongoing trade deals will be minor changes trotted out as overstated victories.
And so no, the ruling won't really affect them; they wouldn't have been much to impact in the first place.
No, they don't fear him at all. They're in charge, knowing that he'll do whatever they feed him.
That's why they had their dustup on Signal. They were arguing about who gets to control him that day.
What? This is purely an executive branch matter, has nothing to do with the judicial branch.
Keep in mind that those surrounding #Trump are puppeting him for their own personal, and diverse, goals.
You could see that directly in the Signal leaks.
And so for many of them the #tariffs aren't the end goal. Some of them are using cases like this and the birthright citizenship case as vehicles to nudge US law in the longrun, and not necessarily in bad ways.
This case stands to reinforce the bounds of the nondeligation doctrine, for example, throwing Trump under the bus to guard against overreach by future, actually competent presidents.
... others just want to watch the world burn.
I'm positive Trump did not know about the Court of International Trade.
Some around him may have, but you can see that they generally shield him from such realities.
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
