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
@batkaren we've already seen originalists reject that sort of thinking as they didn't stick to muskets.
BBC is reporting that #Democrats are huddling to decide whether to ask #Biden to step aside as presumptive nominee.
The thing is, that's not really up to Biden. The party sets its own rules, and it can nominate whomever it wants. They don't need Biden's permission.
The thing I find funniest, though, is that it's like politely asking #Trump to leave the presidency after he lost the election.
No, that's not how this works. We don't ask; we tell. The Democratic Party will tell Biden if he's the nominee, just as the EC process told Trump that he's no longer going to be president.
It does come across as people hoping they don't have to make tough decisions or take action, though. Or be held accountable for the result.
Much easier just to let the individual choose for himself.
@samohTmaS
that's not what their votes said, though.
You're saying something factually incorrect and talking about punishing justices for things they didn't do.
THAT's the real problem with your theory.
@interfluidity you say there is no reason for that, but the reason for that is staring us in the face: IF a person is being prosecuted for something that's not illegal in the first place, that's a strong call for immunity from improper prosecution!
And that's what this is all about, reigning in an administration that's overreaching in its prosecution.
When people get hung up on the motivation aspect they're missing that there are some things that current law allows regardless of motivation. AND we can democratically change that law if we wish, adding in the motivation aspect.
Other authorizations are more limited, hence the categorical tiers that came out in this ruling.
Regardless, to claim immunity from prosecution the accused would first have to demonstrate that their actions have legal basis.
There's no automatic get out of jail free card here.
@catpants it all gets really complicated because not only do the balloting rules vary from state to state, but remember, they're not voting for president but for electors.
In many cases the state would recognize a change in candidate tomorrow if the Democratic Party announced it. In other cases, the electors being elected by the voting would themselves be party members who would select the new candidate.
Either way, if the party, on behalf of its membership, selects a new candidate, we can move ahead.
@Hyolobrika sorry for the double-reply, but I realized an analogy that might be clarifying:
Trump falsely claims that he was tried and convicted without being charged. That would not have been legal prosecution. Actually it would have been insane.
IF it was true, he could have appealed quickly, *before* trial, to get the prosecution itself declared invalid. Courts could have nipped such insanity in the bud.
Same thing here. This isn't about guilt, but about whether the prosecution itself is legally valid, before trial predicated on potentially invalid legal process.
Unlike Trump's claims, these were reasonable, and the Court said some charges were valid and some weren't. The valid claims can proceed to a valid trial.
@joelion OF COURSE people need immunity from improper prosecution!
Do YOU want this administration (or, heaven forbid, a Trump administration) hauling you into court and making you face trial based on faulty charges? We have protections against that, right? And for good reason?
Well, those protections are exactly immunity from prosecution.
The Court here merely pointed out that some charges were faulty while others were proper, and Trump SHOULD face the court based on the proper charges.
@TruthSandwich the thing is, if you're wrong, then your plan isn't going to work.
So: I'd suggest you double check your premises to make sure your plan is actually the right one for the problem.
Personally, I think you're misreading the situation in the country, especially given everything from Trump polling to election results.
@davidaugust
@catpants the Democratic party--its membership really--is free to support anyone it chooses, whether it cares to follow the primary results or not.
It's purely up to them.
And whether their goal is to actually win, or whether they have some other goal that's more important to them.
I'd say the real problem is the misinformation being presented to the folks trying to understand what is happening.
Because people DON'T understand what is happening, understandably since so much content out there is flat out in contradiction with the text of Court rulings.
People can't identify the problems if they have been mislead about what the problems are. THAT's so core to all of this.
And that's what I'm trying to emphasize. You need to get the population on your side to engage that democratic process.
All too often that is completely overlooked.
Even there: get Congress back? No. Get the people voting in their representatives on your side so that they'll vote your way.
@davidaugust
It's procedural. It always was.
Here's a key thing to emphasize that's CONSTANTLY left out of descriptions:
This is NOT immunity from punishment.
It's immunity from *prosecution*.
To put it a different way, the Court says the accused doesn't have to go through a trial and wait for conviction and wait for the appeal to get the case overturned, no, the feds can't haul a person into trial in the first place under certain flawed accusations.
It just gives a shortcut to fixing a flawed--or overreaching--prosecution is all.
@interfluidity the key point is, absolute immunity is only recognized for legal actions.
Can you cite legal basis for ordering violent lawlessness? Seems like a tall hill to climb.
If you can't cite legal basis for that action, then no, the text does not provide it.
@Hyolobrika Ha! What a mess.
I wrote something about how your response made me think for a second, and summarize how I think you're right in the end, but in the context of this thread, I don't think @zaitcev would even care either way :)
@Hyolobrika sure, I just wanted to make sure to cite my source.
But I go one step farther, as the SCOTUS emphasizes that only legal acts can be official.
Therefore, I phrase it as, "immunity for [legal] acts"
It's not the sky falling to say that.
@dcdeejay and it needs to be clear that even in this specific case the Supreme Court pointed out that allegations in the indictment are outside of the scope of official business and therefore subject to prosecution.
I'd say that unfortunately, too many people are paying attention, but to folks who aren't giving them accurate information.
This opinion paved the way for Trump to be prosecuted for some of the allegations in this case. We could have skipped all of this had Biden's administration not overreached and had instead stuck to those allegations.
@Hyolobrika well it's complicated, and that's part of my reply to @hasani
The Supreme Court does make rules. BUT, it can only apply the rules to itself. Otherwise, the rules it makes are subject to engagement with the other branches, including the rules that Congress makes for lower courts.
So yes, the Supreme Court has the final say in the rules. It's just that, often enough the rules made by the Supremes are subject to being ignored, and legitimately at that.
@hasani keep in mind that the Supreme Court makes the rules but coequality points out that they can't actually enforce the rules they make.
If they write a rule that the other branches don't bother recognizing or enforcing, is that really particularly final in any practical sense?
That's how this was set up, to ensure that the Court had no power to enforce bad rules.
@dcdeejay but that's ALWAYS the case anyway. The courts can ALWAYS make such a determination regardless of this ruling.
Judges are free to throw out cases. If we assume judges are so corrupt then this is all moot anyway.
All this says is that if the president is found to be acting legally, then he can't be prosecuted for it.
It's largely a procedural question, and it always was.
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:
