volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@dalfen but they aren't leaders.

Of the three branches of government, justices are about as far from being leaders as you possibly could be

@dougiec3 The Supreme Court cannot and will not come to such a decision because that question was not before the court.

It was not the question presented to the court, and at argument both sides before the court confirmed that they were not pursuing such a stance.

This despite a ton of misreporting on the case.

@elan If you pull up the docket, the judge goes through all of the timeline pointing out how the time was spent, talking about the process, and generally addressing those claims that timeline had been manipulated.

Legal processes take time. They are supposed to, because real people have their real lives threatened by them, so they want to take their time and get it right.

Court procedures take time. If you want something fast, then the court is the wrong place to look for it.

@ginaintheburg again, I would argue that if we can't understand the law then it is fundamentally unjust on its face.

To say that for the sake of justice we must have laws that we can't understand strikes me as a self-defeating claim.

It is to say we must have an unjust system for the sake of justice.

And I firmly reject that stance.

@elan No, the court documents debunk that sort of claim.

@albnelson so in your position I would say the takeaway should be that you were wrong about what you thought were commonly held social norms.

Turns out they weren't.

And so hopefully this is a chance for you to reevaluate some misconceptions that you had.

It turns out your beliefs were wrong, and hopefully you can learn and not be confused in the future.

@Liliki@sfba.social that conspiracy theory is pretty easy to debunk by reading Supreme Court rulings directly instead of listening to special interests that mislead the public for their own benefit.

@staringatclouds no, he won't, because that's not how the US judicial system is set up.

Whoever is telling you this is lying to you.

@elan what you're missing is that the system is protecting itself just fine by refusing to take illegal actions.

This is how the system is SUPPOSED to work. This IS the system.

Apparently Reich would like to rush things. THAT would be breaking the system. And the system is protecting itself by saying no, Robert, we're going to go through the process even if you don't like it.

Biden can't act against Trump because that's not how our system is set up. The system is protecting itself against such political action.

@lawprofblawg my perception is that presidents were always happy to criticize the ICC.

@HeavenlyPossum but there are factual differences making your comparison simply not hold.

@touaregtweet that's not what happened.

That's not how the Supreme Court works. It's not a legislature.

Folks need to stop passing this nonsense around.

@swanksalot Biden doesn't have that authority.

@MikeImBack well the problem is that social media is full of folks passing around sensational, false accounts of what's going on, so yeah, that's the fix.

Tell people to pipe down and do some fact checking instead of promoting the conspiracy theories they're sharing.

@justiceLICSW I mean, he's worthy because he was nominated and approved by the people we elected to the Senate.

Those are the only qualifications that count for the SCOTUS.

@bespacific no, the fate rests firstly in the democratic process.

It's really barking up the wrong tree to focus on the courts.

@albnelson here's an analogy: How much change do I have in my pocket right now?

Would you project, you have thirty five cents, so I must as well?

Or would you simply say, I don't know as there isn't enough information to guess?

Go for the latter option. We don't need to project; we don't need to guess. And then you don't need to be confused.

Your projection is leading to your confusion, so you might as well decline to do that in the first place.