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
@interfluidity people keep saying "absolute immunity" without finishing the phrase.
It's absolute immunity *from invalid prosecution*.
The Court and the parties before the Court are all clear that it's perfectly fine to prosecute a former president--he has no immunity at all from prosecution if the charges are valid.
@interfluidity that IS a form of immunity!
So that's all this is, just a statement that courts must throw out invalid (malicious or otherwise faulty) prosecution upon first contact.
Again, if they were acting illegally then this ruling doesn't protect them.
This ruling only provides protection from prosecution over legal actions.
@interfluidity sure acquittal is A remedy, but there's nothing particularly unique about getting the case thrown out before trial based on the unlawful prosecution.
It's a practical way to deal with an overreaching administration, one that saves all the time and expense of going through a trial that was inappropriate in the first place.
Heck, for a prosecutor to approach the courts with an unlawful process is itself a pretty big problem, that the courts recognize in cases like these!
Yeah, the administration could haul a person through an unlawful process and the person can appeal after... but why?
Here's the ruling. Again, that's not what the court ruled.
What it said was merely that a state can't rule on federal law without some sort of federal permission, or federal process, or something on the federal level.
The tail can't wag the dog.
Whether or not 14 3 is self-enforcing is irrelevant because it's a federal, not state, question.
It was handled in the wrong court.
@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 :)
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:
