volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
Right, he was ordered removed from office, not the ballot.
As for law, the judge acted under New Mexico law citing NMSA 1978 section 44.
You're welcome to read it in the judge's opinion, linked here.
It's not me saying it's state law. It's the judge saying they were acting through state law.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/D101CV202200473-griffin.pdf
@darnell and I pointed out in the other comment that there are vast legal differences between the CREW case and this one.
But another issue is that the Supreme Court only has authority to rule on questions put before it.
The question here, on appeal, is a purely legal question, and it is not whether Trump is an insurrectionist.
The question is:
>Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?
It's mainly a matter of law. Did CO break its state laws when ordering Trump excluded?
Remember, so often SCOTUS issues rulings where it emphasizes that its place as an appeals court is not to determine guilt or innocence. Its place is just to make sure legal procedures were followed.
@darnell he wasn't banned from the ballot, he was removed from office, which is exactly one distinction I was pointing out.
It was also a motion under New Mexico law, not federal law, with a different court.
So yep, that case really highlights the parts missing from what people are saying about the Supreme Court case.
Different court, different laws, different question before the court, just a vastly different circumstance.
@uncircuitous@universeodon.com what so many miss is that there's a difference of factual understanding that can't be bridged by something like this.
Once the speaker rests an argument on something believed to be already debunked, the rest goes nowhere.
So he's not laying anything out for MAGA minds. He's not speaking their language.
It's really just choir preaching, which gets us nowhere.
@pre keep in mind that there are a variety of arguments on the table as to why the 14th doesn't prevent Trump from office.
Off the top of my head, there's the matter of what constitutes an officer of the US, what is required for guilt with regard to the article, the process for determining that guilt, etc.
The 14th doesn't take effect unless all of those links in the chain are found to be solid. Any single one of them being weak would nullify the amendment to this case.
The idea of insisting that he wasn't involved is only one of many arguments at play here.
@darnell the Court doesn't have legal authority to ban Trump from the ballot in America.
That access is a matter of state law that the federal court simply doesn't have any authority over.
@mousey no, I'm not saying there's too much data to be useful.
I'm saying success comes down to things beyond the control of platforms, things like timing, interested users just happening to log on at the same time.
A platform can do its best to nudge it to happen, but there's only so much it can do.
@codinghorror @jwz
@NeptuneCaffeine@mstdn.social lots of people getting on Fediverse out of irrational want to stick it to BlueSky? :)
@TruthSandwich@mastodon.cloud again, it sounds like you just haven't come across such people, and so you assume they don't exist.
But they do and I know a fair number of them personally.
Not only are they self-identified as pro-abortion, not only do they flat out say they want more abortions, but as a related matter, they actively push back against the folks saying they don't exist.
They wish it was normalized for people to be able to feel pro-abortion and also to normalize admitting it.
No, it's not my cup of tea, but it's definitely a thing.
I actually don't enjoy talking with them all that much because so often discussions invariably end up talking abortion, so I don't know if I'd say you're missing out from not coming across them, but yeah.
@katrinakatrinka vox is a terrible source, often getting things wrong and going for the sensational clickbait instead of solid reporting.
But all you need to know is what I quoted above: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,”
Vox and others can write whatever they want, but when they run up against fundamental elements of the design of the US government, well they can't talk themselves around that simple element.
But let me point out a different thing about this situation: I couldn't care less whether Trump is unhappy, BUT we should be pointing out his failure to prosecute Clinton as one reason potential Trump voters should dump the loser.
Trump has been spending quite a lot of time ducking responsibility for running his branch, and he needs to be called out on it.
@coupland read the actual argument formally submitted to the courts, not whatever garbage the guy vomits out in some rally somewhere.
Fine, I'll give you that the idiot may be spewing multiple "arguments," saying different things in public than on the record (which is something we really should be emphasizing to take him down), but the actual, formal argument is about the legal powers of the president, not bloviating about fifth avenue.
@BeAware@social.beaware.live
Well one easy example of an issue that BlueSky can handle better is account migration.
People using Fediverse rightly point out that moving between instances is clumsy, and that's because the underlying system is all built around instances, not users, so moving between instances is an afterthought that's clumsily tacked on.
BlueSky made different design choices that made users, not instances, the core piece. One implication of this is that the user has much more control of their posts, where they reside, and how they're addressed.
The two design approaches are upside down from each other, so whether you want an instance-oriented system or a user-oriented system determines which system is more in line with your needs.
@amgine in general the Court doesn't and can't issue orders that would be subject to such obstruction.
The order is either followed or it's not. Any matter of obstruction would be a different case.
With the checks and balances in the US system, Courts generally don't have the authority to order things broadly as a legislature would have, and so the obstruction would generally be coming from someone not a party to the case, and thus not subject to the decision in the first place.
@bigheadtales do you realize how absurd that is?
To declare the constitution null and void would not only deprive the court of the authority it would need to make such a declaration, but it would also undermine the power structure of the US which is quite a feat for a fascist!
One of those fascists who doesn't want power, huh?
Really if you ever listen to Federalist Society content, they tend to be extremely anti-fascist, emphasizing limits of power and the importance of laws that protect civil rights.
But if you're so far out there that you don't see the paradox of a court founded by the Constitution rejecting the constitution that founds it, well... That's just pretty far out.
@coupland No, the reason it's about example is that it misses the actual argument.
The argument is not that a president can do whatever he wants with impunity. The argument is that a president operating legally within his legal authority can't be personally sued for his execution of the office. The suit has to be against the office, not the individual.
So presidents can't assassinate political rivals with impunity because that wouldn't be a legal part of carrying out the office. The example just doesn't apply.
@artemesia You're talking as if this is all up to the Supreme Court, but it's absolutely not. Checks and balances in the US system adamantly don't give them such unilateral authority.
The court can only work with what is brought in front of them by others, executive branches and petitioners. They play such an enormous role in this whole process, including the timeline.
And they can't name their own successors. If we elect people who approve the nominees that they would prefer, well, we get the government we vote for.
You're right that the Supreme Court might not care to rush these cases, as is their prerogative, but even that leaves all sorts of other action ranging from other executive actions in governments throughout the country through other court actions, where lower courts do have the ability to push back on a Supreme Court that is moving too slowly.
But mainly, should the court kick a case back on a technicality than that speaks to problems with the case itself. Again, something the court doesn't have unilateral authority over.
@darulharb That's not quite what happens in these cases.
It's not that the lower court put the Supreme Court on a clock, but rather that the lower court offered the professional courtesy of restraining themselves to give things time to work out more peacefully.
Heck, if you really want to view it in terms of the Supreme Court, this is the lower court offering them more time to consider the case rather than feeling the need to act at that very second should they want to.
The Supreme Court has wide latitude to act if it wants to regardless of the lower court. But the lower court is making it easier on everybody by delaying its own ruling for a bit.
@TruthSandwich@mastodon.cloud Oh no, the thing is, not everyone is anti-abortion.
I know plenty who are proudly pro-abortion.
@mimarek importantly, this doesn't actually have much impact on the specific question before the Court.
The question before the Supreme Court is not whether such studies have scientific merit. The Court is not in a position to weigh in on scientific questions. It's not their job.
The question before the Court is whether legal processes were followed, regardless of the science the processes may have considered.
Were the corrects public notices issued? Did the right officials sign the right forms? Were timelines properly indicated in the public record? Those are the sort of questions the Supreme Court will grapple with in their review, and none of it has anything to do with scholarly publication.
@hankg Why not judge the product for its own costs and benefits instead of trying to judge it based on personalities of promoters?
You might just find that it's simply better.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
