volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@ematts@mastodon.online

Well it's because we want a firewall to protect judicial independence.

It's one thing to pass a law and dictate what a letter carrier might do, but to have the legislative and executive branches dictating things of the Supreme Court? That's far more fraught.

If a justice is misbehaving them they can be impeached. That's the one and only reaction provided to deal with justices without violating judicial independence.

@WritingFactory

@BeefGriller

May be something explicit?

@dancinyogi

Right. The Republicans I hear from long ago settled on the "well that's just how real estate works" position.

So the decision doesn't change anything. If anything it merely reinforces their ideas about Trump.

@freemo so I think that's the key, focusing on the different sets of facts, working on coming to some consensus with them over what is true.

You started by saying you were astonished by the theories, but given the alternative sets of facts, it shouldn't be so astonishing.

Its simply people working from a different playbook, and often having very predictable ideas based on the facts they're working with.

@freemo well for anyone else who's interested in this line of thought, I'd emphasize no *legal* check.

There are bureaucratic checks, folks in the chain of command who can put up speedbumps or be hassles to any command, whether it be "bring be coffee" or "launch a nuke".

It's not about legality at that point but about management of the sprawling executive branch of the US government.

At some point it might be easier to fulfill some legal requirement than to get cooperation out of some 18 year old service member five levels down a management bureaucracy..

@coctaanatis@mstdn.social well right, and part of the story that ProPublica doesn't bother mentioning is that Thomas points out that he was completely in compliance with the reporting rules as they stood.

@vy proof?

@freemo this is one of those cases where I'd say it's important to talk to [at least] a person who has the perspective to find out why they believe it.

Have you?

So very often when I talk to people who have perspectives that are so different from my own I figure out, through discussion, why they believe what they believe, generally because they're working with a different set of facts or premises.

I know a few people with really out there beliefs, and when I chat with them I figure out the factually disagreements we have, so their ideas are sometimes rather sensible, given their inputs.

@mcnulla

That's literally not what he said though.

@lauren

The original tweet sounds like an attempt at a joke to me, so if he says that's what it was, then I can believe it.

If it doesn't match a person's notion of what a joke is, well that gets complicated.

@raphael you're describing mechanisms to work around shortcomings in ActivityPub, though.

Fundamentally, AP has issues. We can talk about workarounds, but that doesn't change the issues that AP has itself.

@jeff

@AmericanScream

Of course the internet can exist without central authorities!

You are welcome to run your own internet any day of the week. Set one up in your own home if you'd like.

The entire point of the engineering behind the internet is about enabling such things.

@coctaanatis@mstdn.social

Yes, it's in the basic notion of the US federal government being comprised of three coequal branches.

Should the legislative branch be able to pass laws constraining the the Court or the executive branch be able to act against the Court then they would be above the judicial branch in violation of that fundamental design, violating judicial independence.

So yep, the impeachment power is provided as the solution here, the way to remove a justice personally without violating the firewall between branches of government.

If a justice is not worth impeaching then the whole thing is null in the first place.

@MJmusicinears

Here's a link to the Library of Congress page where you can browse the dozens and dozens of bills that the House has passed.

I don't know who told you they haven't passed one piece of legislation, but you should probably not trust that source.

https://www.congress.gov/advanced-search/legislation?congresses%5B%5D=118&legislationNumbers=&restrictionType=field&restrictionFields%5B%5D=allBillTitles&restrictionFields%5B%5D=summary&summaryField=billSummary&enterTerms=&wordVariants=true&legislationTypes%5B%5D=hr&public=true&chamber=all&actionTerms=&legislativeActionWordVariants=true&dateOfActionOperator=equal&dateOfActionStartDate=&dateOfActionEndDate=&dateOfActionIsOptions=yesterday&dateOfActionToggle=multi&legislativeAction=149&sponsorState=One&member=&sponsorTypes%5B%5D=sponsor&sponsorTypeBool=OR&dateOfSponsorshipOperator=equal&dateOfSponsorshipStartDate=&dateOfSponsorshipEndDate=&dateOfSponsorshipIsOptions=yesterday&committeeActivity%5B%5D=0&committeeActivity%5B%5D=3&committeeActivity%5B%5D=11&committeeActivity%5B%5D=12&committeeActivity%5B%5D=4&committeeActivity%5B%5D=2&committeeActivity%5B%5D=5&committeeActivity%5B%5D=9&satellite=%5B%5D&search=&submitted=Submitted

@retrohondajunki@mstdn.social

I mean Jeffries leads the block that voted unanimously against proceeding on funding!

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023403?Page=2

@uspolitics

It's not the fault of dysfunction... and then the piece goes on to describe the dysfunction

@georgetakei

They didn't agree to a budget this spring that was in any sort of form to be acted on.

Takei talks like there's a bill ready to be passed, but that's not how the process works.

@smeg

Democrats voted as a block against proceeding on legislation to fund government, though.

Republicans overwhelmingly voted to proceed.

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023403?Page=2