volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@morecowbell@mastodon.social

Is it? I'm still waiting to hear what you meant by "Josh Blackman the white trash Carl Schmitt."

@murshedz

Yeah, screw that democracy thing. It's annoying when other people don't agree with the "right" conclusion.

Let's just skip to having judges impose their wills on the law.

@wood

From what I've read, Bluesky seems more advanced, more user focused, basically more like what I wish ActivityPub had been.

But critical mass is king.

Facebook didn't rise because it was the best at what it did. It won its corner because it had critical mass of users already on it.

@d2r2

But that's just the greed of wanting security and being willing to trade other things to get it :)

Greed here is just the term for wanting to be better off, and that's just plain natural, reasonable, rational.

It's just a way of describing that rational want using a word with some judgmental baggage attached, which isn't particularly helpful.

So, many people trade currency for electricity for Bitcoin because they value the security of the cryptocurrency. That's perfectly rational.

My point: don't blame the crypto for the electricity. Blame the currency for failing to provide security such that a person would trade it for BTC.

@pallenberg

@morecowbell@mastodon.social

No?

@theothersimo

I think they didn't because they explicitly said they didn't.

It's unfortunate to me how proud people seem to be sometimes not to have considered other viewpoints.

@box464 yeah, I've been seeing such things and it's been really troubling/annoying, people around here posting a wall of hashtags so many of which are unrelated to the actual content.

Such a thing undermines the use of hashtags at all, once they no longer identify their content.

Unfortunately, it seems there is incentive to hashtag pollute like that, and little to push back against it.

Perhaps removing hashtags from the body would make that even worse, hiding the pollution.
@atomicpoet @thedextriarchy @fediversenews

@Crystal_Fish_Caves

Fortunately you don't need to have faith in the decisions of such a man since the US government was designed to make sure no man (no one) could hold far-ranging powers.

Checks and balances are in place specifically so that flawed humans would have their powers checked.

This ranges from having a Supreme Court that meets as a group through the extremely limited powers that the Court has in the first place.

I really don't care what this guy thinks. I do care that he's part of a system that specifically holds him back from imposing his own personal thoughts, and the decisions that come out of the Court show that.

@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? :)