volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@jbe

You misunderstand. What I said is entirely compatible with your "opposite" view of how things work.

We're talking about the same way of working, while you're just looking at what might happen in reaction to the overstepping.

The overstepping is itself the problem. It's true that there might be discipline as a result, but that doesn't change that the overstepping has happened.

A SCOTUS justice cannot have the same impact in such a trial because SCOTUS justices do not sit for such trials in the first place.

@murshedz

@theothersimo

The thing is, when you check out the other side and see that they have no ground to stand on, it makes a person that much more confident that they're on the right side.

It's a red flag that Propublica is cherrypicking here *even if they're picking the right cherries*.

Let's see that the other side is wrong. Let's not leave it potentially right.

@morecowbell@mastodon.social

Who said I was objecting to anything?

I was inviting you to say more since I was interested in seeing how you arrived at that conclusion.

I mean, you might have some reasoning that I'd object to, but I'm not making assumptions on whether you had any particular background on your statement.

@VolokhC

@wherephysicswentwrong@universeodon.com

I generally agree with your perspective there, especially with Twitter-style spaces that, IMO, aren't by interface conducive to learning and mind-broadening discussion.

And I'm only barely optimistic that Fediverse interfaces will be any better, especially given the internal design of the ActivityPub protocol.

@wjmaggos

Well I do hear them complaining about such things occasionally, but I don't hear them calling for impeachment.

They recognize that the biases and influences of justices are just part of the US system, and it's why we have checks and balances and enough justices to hopefully counter those influences if they're too biasing.

@Crystal_Fish_Caves

I would hope your faith in SCOTUS would be based in their handling of legal issues and the validity of legal arguments in public opinions, not the personal drama played out in the political scene.

@eatapineapple

Careful. I hear from Arlington/DC friends that they're experiencing a notable uptick on crime there in the last couple of years, personally experiencing I mean.

Issues ranging from assaults on the Metro through local storefronts being victimized.

I know a few people looking to get out as it's interfering with daily life, so just a word of caution.

@scottspeaking

@morecowbell@mastodon.social @VolokhC

How do you figure?

@murshedz

Well, the two courts have vastly different roles in the US legal system, with far different protections in place to make sure their members are doing their jobs correctly.

It's apples and oranges.

The judge overseeing trial proceedings has huge amounts of power to unilaterally influence how they proceed, able to put his finger on scales, and basically having the power over someone's life through the course of the argument.

A Supreme Court justice is only one of nine serving a (mostly) appellate role, with checks on his power from both inside and outside the Court.

Does that help?

@Jeremiah

I'm mostly joking when I say this:

Well, maybe you're just not on the right instance? You're not so much into alpacas and their precious metal mining? :)

@gabriel

I'm interesting in the potential of distributed social networks, including this one.

I think it has a FAR way to go, but maybe contributing to it would help it get there.

@outinthewoods

Well, it's Occam's Razor.

The simpler explanation is just that the court is following through on its simple legal mandate of pointing it out when agencies in power are in violation of the law.

And again, if the laws are bad laws, then this is how WE call for the laws to be revised. I think that's so important.

If 21 U.S.C. § 355 needs to be changed to allow the FDA's actions, let's get to it!

@theothersimo

The reason I can tell that's untrue is because ProPublica is the one presenting a single perspective in their reporting.

It's weird to say that the one representing a single perspective is the one that's not cherrypicking.

No: those are the cherries.

@cdarwin

It's funny because the judge was calling out the FDA's admitted failure to follow the safety rules for drug approval.

Biden oversees the FDA now.

So he's trying to point fingers for his own failure. He should have had the FDA fix the regulatory issues instead of complaining on being called out.

@Moedray

No, that's the opposite of what happened here.

BECAUSE the judge isn't an expert, therefore he can't somehow override the procedure for approving a drug.

The FDA didn't follow safety rules for approving the drug, by their own admission, and so by law the judge has to call them out on that, no matter if he personally thinks the drug is safe or not.

Maybe the rules are bad. Maybe Congress needs to reform the law. But that's not up to the judge.

@realcaseyrollins

Well keep in mind that judges are not experts in health stuff and can't judge things like side effects and frequency.

They are experts in law and procedure, HOPEFULLY procedures that will keep people safe, but again, that's not up to judges to sort out because it's not their area of expertise.

The judge was looking at things like illegal actions of the FDA and errors in how the drug was approved because those are the guardrails around safety, for better or worse the judge isn't qualified to say.

It's really up to Congress to change the rule if it needs to be changed. The judge is only able to say that the safety rule wasn't followed by the FDA's own admission.

@theothersimo

In my experience, so many experts that I know personally are absolutely fed up with news reports misreporting things about their own fields.

There's a good reason people are losing so much faith in the press lately. We can see for ourselves that they are reporting things that we know, that we can see with our own eyes, are untrue. And then we see reporters supposedly only consulting with experts who will tell them what they want to hear to justify the stories they want to tell.

No, the justices aren't above the law. They're required to obey the same laws as the rest of us.

However, if we want an independent judiciary, then Congress cannot have power over the Supreme Court, and cannot be allowed to bully justices.

Why a newspaper couldn't find an expert to point this out, well, you'll have to ask the paper about their methodology there.

@outinthewoods

The issue is that the way the US legal system is set up, judges don't really have to option of ignoring law just because they think it's a good thing.

Or a bad thing.

It's a sword that works both ways: because we don't want judges doing bad things outside of law, that means we also can't give them the freedom to do good things outside of law.

@kcarr2015

Maybe so, but the issue is that the FDA was legally required to respond. No matter how hard the eyerolling is, well, that's how Congress laid out the rules of the road, and failure to follow the legal rules leads to exactly this sort of situation.

Again: YES let's revisit those rules and decide if they need to be changed.

We need to highlight the legal rules at issue so we can call for statutory reform.
@CGHildebrandt