volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@youronlyone

Again: resource limitations. If a news room only has $10,000 to spare and they think it would cost $20,000 to join the Fediverse, then it's not even a choice. They can't no matter how much they'd like to.

They aren't limiting themselves. The real world limitations of resources impose the limit on them.

I don't mean to repeat myself, but I don't think you did understand my point after all, as I was referring to a stark reality that can't be reasoned away, no matter the preferences.

@sharearea

@trz4747@mstdn.social

The judge's ruling has nothing to do with religion but simply observance that the FDA broke laws in its process.

Either we need to hold the FDA accountable for respecting the law, or we need to have Congress change the law. But excusing this based on religion stands in the way of fixing the problem.

Here's the ruling so you can read for yourself:

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/myvmojgodvr/ND%20Texas%20Abortion%20Pill%20Ruling%202023-04-07.pdf

@theothersimo

Not only are there major questions about whether he broke a law, there are even questions as to whether there was a law that he COULD HAVE BROKEN given the three coequal branch design of the US government.

And that's not even getting into the claim of preclearance, that Thomas had already had this matter adjudicated and was given the all-clear from the relevant legal experts.

To say there is no question is blindly ignore the tremendous weight of evidence suggesting there was no way he could have.

@staidwinnow

In fact, I FINALLY came across someone posting, well, only the conclusion of the TX opinion, while they posted the whole WA opinion.

The TX opinion also declined to offer a national injunction, and so they could technically coexist.

(As a side note, it's fishy for people to argue over the two opinions but only present the arguments of they one they agree with. Let's see both so we can see where the wrong one went wrong, so we can fact check!)

@nicolewolverton

It's important to emphasize that judges don't really consider things like peer-reviewed research. That's not their field of expertise, so they are to stay out of it.

What they DO do is look at whether agencies followed their procedures, whether the *agencies* considered peer-reviewed evidence when required by procedure.

The courts will say exactly why they reject the agency's position and give both the agency and Congress the errors they'd need to consider to try again.

@staidwinnow

It depends on exactly what happens in the arguments and rulings.

For example, this Washington ruling said it was declining a national injunction, so the ruling only applies to the plaintiff states.

It's just part of the federal system of the US not to put all the eggs in one basket, so different states do have different laws being enforced.

@GottaLaff

@GottaLaff

Keep in mind that different circuits and different courts have different rules and different precedents even though they're all federal, and that's regardless of specific judges. It's pretty common to see different courts ruling differently like this.

Notably, the Washington court declined to make their injunction nation wide, as you can see in their ruling. It only applies to their Plaintiff states.

Often the judicial system wants to let the processes play out within different lower courts to see the argument from all sides, to avoid a final ruling that misses something.

@6x6pix

The counterclaim is that he didn't ignore the rules but rather went out of his way to make sure he followed them, specifically as per the law. And, they say, it isn't even close.

So that's one of those factual claims that different people will hear the opposite versions of, and I fear that as has happened so often, folks will be too busy yelling about conclusions that they never stop to notice that they have a core factual issue to sort out.

If @ProPublica didn't consult any "legal experts" offering a different opinion, then they really seem to be just asking those who will give you the answer they want for their sensational story.

This onesided method of investigation and reporting is really unhealthy, for the public no less.

it is, however, par for the course for that organization. They have a long history of putting out slanted stories to grab headlines.

@dishtowel

There's a long history of different presidents doing exactly that, ignoring court rulings all up and down the judicial process.

I don't know how many rulings I've read over the years where judges just shrug and said, well, I've few options beside the opinion.

That's why courts are said to be the practically weakest of the branches. They can rule, but they lack much power of enforcement of their rulings.

@gwfoto@newsie.social

Well, it's democracy.

Until you get enough voters to elect representatives to impeach a justice, the justice gets to stay.

So, try to make your arguments to your fellow voters to convince them of your perspective.

Otherwise it's subversion of the US democratic system to try to boot a legally appointed justice without the support of our representatives in Congress to do so.

@barney@mas.to

@barney@mas.to

Oh gosh, so many people are coming up with these ideas that amount to doing away with judicial independence that seem outright dangerous, more dangerous than even the current situation.

Congress threatening a Supreme Court justice to resign using blackmail? To accept that sort of behavior is to open the gate to it with all of the justices moving forward.

Don't like Thomas? Fine. there are eight other justices there in the weakest branch of government, and there are checks and balances protecting us from even bad opinions that are handed down.

But to hand Congress the power over the otherwise independent judiciary? That's a huge deal.

@gwfoto@newsie.social

@Sunny

To put it another way, BECAUSE the government falls into three branches, the 1st Branch, Congress, cannot interfere with the coequal 3rd Branch, SCOTUS. That would blur the branches.

That includes trying to enforce this sort of power over members of the other branch.

But in the technicalities, if you're interested, I'm referring to "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

The law you quote is arguably part of Congress's establishment of inferior courts, as establishment involves their rules of operation.

@Colby@mastodon.world

Well, good thing that's not what I think :)

If any justice is committing major offenses in his private life, fine, that's a matter for the police to investigate just like any other person. Justices have to obey the law just like anyone else.

However, as for their roles as justices on the Court, if a justice is doing their job so inoffensively to the job that Congress can't tell, then it's hard to justify giving Congress so much power over the judiciary that they might go fishing to find offense.

It's like, if you're doing your own job so well that your employer can't see any change in your work, then it's really none of their business what you're doing after business hours.

So far Congress is not particularly unhappy with the work of any of the justices. And therefore, they're not choosing to fire, through impeachment.

@nancylwayne

@Colby@mastodon.world

If the offenses of justices are so able to be hidden away, in other words that they are so inoffensive, then there's not really any need to impeach them in the first place.

So this is why we have this system in place, to maintain judicial independence while giving Congress the ability to impeach IF a justice does misbehave in a way that becomes substantial.

So what you're describing is a feature, not a bug, giving justices independence from undue interference in their branch from others seeking power.

Otherwise there'd be nothing to stop powerful congresspeople from hounding the nine into submission.

@nancylwayne

@gedeonm

Careful.

Regardless of what you think of how the independent judiciary is comporting itself right now, it could be so much worse should we give up and give Congress power over the Supreme Court.

I mean, Congress isn't exactly firing on all cylinders itself, and that's WITH voters' ability to fire their congressmen.

@Sunny

Keep in mind that there are two parts to the federal judiciary in the US: the Supreme Court, which is independent, and the lower courts, which Congress establishes by law.

Because the Supreme Court is independent of the Legislative Branch, it has other processes for setting its rules. THAT's what Thomas was referring to.

The judicial branch employees referred to here are just those that Congress has jurisdiction over.

Not to mention, Thomas would probably argue that those who gave him gifts did not fall under either of the two requirements you included.