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
@jstatepost again, that's the opposite of what the SCOTUS did. It takes itself out of interpreting science because that's a job for the other branches of government.
@gabriel or the party could ask Electors to vote for a different candidate and maybe not even tell Biden.
The whole country could be in on the trick.
Let Biden think he's won and even throw him a little party even while the real president is seated.
@realcaseyrollins
@interfluidity where exactly do you see any expansion of prosecution authority?
As you seem to recognize, it does limit the ability to prosecute for official acts, which was my point, but where do you find a separate expansion in the ruling?
@realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @Hyolobrika
@SenatorMoobs the problem is, Who's going to enforce mandatory jurisdiction?
The other branches couldn't impose punishment without violating the independence of the judicial branch.
The Court's power to select which cases to hear is a fundamental result of the separate but equal design of the federal government, and Congress can no more force the Supreme Court to take a case than the Supreme Court can force Congress to take up legislation.
That Congress would pass legislation to recognize this is nice, but it was not required.
Exactly: since it doesn't say anything about removing the appointment, the president lacks legal authority. There's nothing he can point to as the source of the authority.
Impeachment is the one and only option.
@DemocracyMattersALot
@JBShakerman that's not really how it works.
To apply this ruling, an official (say, Biden) first has to demonstrate to a trial court the legal authority under which they acted. That will be far removed from the Supreme Court, and many different judges will be involved in any action along those lines.
It has nothing to do with presidential crime, but rather legal authority.
Only if the president acts without legal authority does the issue of criminality come to play.
@tehuti88 and don't overlook what this says about MSNBC.
Honestly, that network is trash, so of course they're going to be pulling this.
Keeps your attention, right?
The problem is, it's hard to comprehensively test a person, so if you're not in the classroom it's hard to see that you're being presented with the material.
Yes, you can tell them that you're at home to reading it on your own, but how do they know the student really is?
Mandatory attendance is not great, but there just aren't really better options.
@kwheaton I also simply think that fair or not, Biden's popularity is so low that he's one of the few candidates who might lose to Trump.
I've long felt that either party could claim the win simply by choosing a different candidate. Just about any different candidate.
Democrats could win if they choose a candidate other than Biden, so the question is, what is their priority? Winning the election or something else?
@lakelady just goes to highlight that the focus needs to be on winning over fellow voters, bringing them over to the right side, rather than working against them year after year.
@jstatepost articles like these misunderstand the Court's job in the US government.
The Court isn't supposed to be ruling on matters of science, but rather on matters of law.
The Court emphatically does not have the expertise to judge matters of science, and it is aware of that, which is why it avoids wading into those waters, leaving those decisions up to others who actually do have the expertise.
And the example from the article serves to illustrate why that's so important.
The questions before the Court are matters of what the laws say, not what science says. Presumably Congress will have waded through the science and come to the best laws based on that. The Court, then, is to promote those laws under the assumption that they've followed the science.
So it's not that the Court rejects science. Rather, if anything it attempts to bolster science by assuming that the laws it promotes themselves represent the science.
To do otherwise, THAT would be the rejection of science.
@laurahelmuth
@michael_martinez oh, it's the opposite: the law REQUIRES the money to be used for other purposes.
By law Social Security revenues must be deposited into the Treasury just like all other tax collections, where it gets spent just like all other revenues.
In addition, I always encourage people who are interested to read directly from Supreme Court decisions themselves, since there's so much misreporting on what they say.
In the decision the Court is actually *rolling back* the power of the judicial branch since under Chevron it was up to judges to decide things like what constituted ambiguous and reasonable.
This ruling takes judges out of that process, putting it back in the hands of the Legislative and Executive Branches.
@indigo8s maybe don't take the words of MAGA idiots so seriously.
The Court restrained, not expanded, the powers of the president, pulling back a president's power to prosecute who he wants.
MSNBC figures seem to be getting that backwards.
Roberts wasn't on the Court in 2000...
Anyway, no, that's not what happened in Bush v Gore. The Court didn't select anything, it simply told a state court to knock it off after the state court tried to interfere in the election.
SCOTUS pulled out of interference, it *refused* to have the courts selecting a winner.
In Bush v Gore Florida was allowed to choose its own winner without judicial interference.
@JBShakerman no, the SCOTUS decision explicitly recognizes the ability to prosecute a former president for illegal actions in office.
If an action is not legal then the ruling doesn't apply to it.
@DeeGLloyd@mastodon.world the Supreme Court decision explicitly recognizes bribery and the ability to prosecute former presidents.
Folks passing around headlines about legalizing bribery are falling for sensationalism that gets the story backwards.
@futurebird perhaps.
Though it looks like Weiss was Senate-confirmed so the issue may not apply to him.
You say you literally can not replace #Biden, and then you talk about how the replacement can be done :)
OF COURSE you can replace Biden at this point.
Trump is so unpopular that there's a good chance the best way to beat him is to nominate nearly anyone better than Biden.
There's on sense fretting about Trump making court challenges. They'd be laughed out just as easily as his election challenges were laughed out.
@Awoke@mastodon.social
What new powers?
This Court has been all about dialing back the powers of the president, not making new ones, which will be pretty nice should the election go badly.
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:
