volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@geobeck

I mean it already has ethics rules.
It's just not appropriate for other branches to be speaking to interfere with its operations by insisting on different ones

@Nonilex

@jonberger

Exactly. It would be an unconstitutional violation of judicial Independence.

@Nonilex

@1dalm

Careful. There would be PR issues with a church presenting abortion as something approaching a religious ceremony.

@TexasObserver

@gcblasing@mstdn.social

I mean, the Court had a term that was specifically marked by rulings in favor of voters and the democratic process, from its rulings against administration overruling of congressional authority through support of the Voting Rights Act.

This cartoon is pretty off base.

@nataliedavisgdread@newsie.social

It's pretty ironic that one would talk about saving American democracy by preventing the democratic process from electing the guy.

@anaribeiro

It's pretty weird that the article didn't bother explaining how they were awarded these payments.

Presumably some law or procedure wrote them these checks, and maybe that needs to be reformed, but without identifying how the payments were issued we are left not knowing what to fix or reform.

@chrisgeidner

Yes, there's a long history of legislation that is invalid or illegal. What of it?

It's really notable to me that you didn't actually provide any argument as to where a flaw might be in what I said.

Just pointing to other people doing the same thing doesn't mean it's not wrong for them to have done it.

@ChemicalEyeGuy

I mean, that's how it goes down in the mythology, but it doesn't change that SCOTUS did not order the counting to stop.

People who actually care about history, and people who actually care about how the US government functions, are done a disservice by that misleading account of what happened in Florida.

And it's a shame. Citizens need to know civics, need to know how their government works, if they want to engage with it.

@gpollara

I always laugh when reporters report about things they don't know or say they don't understand.

Come back when you figure it out, reporter?

@dustcircle

Oh gosh, Vox gets this stuff wrong so often. Well, it gets clicks out of it.

No, the SCOTUS didn't put itself in charge of the executive branch. Quite the opposite.

It keeps saying the executive can do whatever it wants, so long as it stays within the laws passed by Congress.

@toussaint

Specifically what in the SCOTUS ruling do you think they got wrong?

@chrisgeidner

The problem is that legislating the actions of the Court would violate the separation of branches, violating the independence of the judiciary.

If a justice is misbehaving then he should be impeached. That's the one and only tool provided to address it, the compromise that allows justices to be held accountable without too much interference in their work.

And if a justice is not misbehaving, then there's no need for trying to interfere with court business.

So impeach or don't. That's the choice our elected representatives have.

@KathyLK

But this is a question for the Congress, not for the Court.

The Court doesn't have the authority to decide what *should* be law. That's for the democratic branch to decide.

The Court is to look at what we, through our representatives, have chosen, and rule based on that.

If we don't think discrimination should be protected speech, great! Let's elect people who will carve out that exception to speech protection.

But to look at the Court for this is to look at the wrong branch of government.

@ChemicalEyeGuy

SCOTUS did not order the Florida to stop counting votes.

It only slapped down a state court that was out of line in interfering in the election process.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/#tab-opinion-1960861

@fmhilton

This article is pretty nonsensical, though, a reporter citing another reporter, one from Slate, whose own analysis cherrypicks to come to its conclusion.

For example, it highlights the line that Kavanaugh's argument cannot be taken seriously but leaves off that the opinion is referring to *two* arguments, Kagan's as well.

No, justices aren't losing patience with Kavanaugh, any more than they're losing patience with any other. Justices disagree, as they always have.

It's silly to put out such a muckracking story, except that it gets clicks.

@choyer

I imagine it's just the standard motivation of an underdog barking to get attention for the one they favor.

@chessert

I mean, he was joining as part of the integration process...

@nurkiewicz

@MEGA

You wouldn't?

That's pretty standard for political races.

@mnutty

But again remember, don't oversimplify, legal issues in the country aren't just resolved by the Supreme Court. There are hundreds of courts around the country all ruling on disputes, sometimes even ignoring the Supreme Court when they don't agree with the Supreme Court's ruling.

So again it's the same thing: oversimplifying processes in the US government allows reporters to make these fear-mongering stories that are just completely unrealistic because the checks and balances often exist in the details that get overlooked in those clickbait stories.

Trump failed in so many of his promises because he did not understand how the government worked, and he shows no sign of having learned in the years since.

We need to be smarter than him, which is not hard, and we need to point out to everybody just how ignorant he was and remains, how incapable he is of fulfilling his promises because he has no idea how the US government works.

But we need to know how the US government works to point that out.

@mnutty

Because constitutional restrictions still apply without the amendment process, which requires much more than a slight congressional majority, just to name one reason Trump's promises to his supporters are empty.