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
@BohemianPeasant but it's not the role of the Supreme Court in the US system to reflect current perspectives.
Wrong branch of government. That's the legislative branch that's supposed to be reflecting the opinions of the people as they evolve over time.
And the Senate doesn't block appointments. That's not how the process works. Rather, the president works with the Senate to settle on an appointee that our elected senators can accept.
This process was set up this way to ensure that presidents don't wield too much power. It's really important to get it right.
@Nonilex I really don't see what's unclear there.
VPs very often have positions different from presidents, even the current P and VP demonstrate that.
Leaving abortion to the states seems like a pretty clear position to take.
That's not quite how it works in the US, by design.
Winning an election doesn't mean you can freely enact your policies, as that has serious downsides in terms of things like representation and consistency/reliability.
Winning an election means you get a seat at the table to participate in the ongoing discussion about how to govern the country.
The problem is that we keep electing and reelecting politicians who refuse to participate even as they complain that they don't have a voice... that they have but they're not using.
The great example was Democrats shutting down the House of Representatives even while complaining that it's shut down.
Unfortunately, their voters generally don't know what they did and so won't hold them accountable for leaving the conversation.
@crispius@mstdn.crispius.ca
Exactly. And that's exactly why the judicial branch wasn't granted executive authority. It keeps the Court in check.
You don't have to go down the road of violence. The other two branches could simply ignore the Court if it was really so off the rails.
But it's not, despite sensationalized stories getting clicks.
But in just about each of your arguments above there are serious drawbacks and reasons they might actually be counterproductive.
For example, you say the court today is slow. Firstly, I disagree with that, but even if it is, adding more justices threatens to make it exponentially slower, if even more time has to be taken to shuttle drafts back and forth between even more justices.
And you seem to keep going back to representation when the Court is adamantly NOT to be a representative body. Wrong branch of government.
Should the Court start featuring representation it would be a malfunction of the US system, not a benefit.
@xs4me2 probably. It just wasn't very interesting.
Far more interesting is how outfits like NYTimes put out these bizarre pieces that misinform the public... and lots of people notice, which is part of why people have lost so much faith in journalism.
@jmccabe from the reporting (I couldn't find the actual submission, maybe it's just too new) it's not sounding like the argument is over immunity.
That's just a side note, saying that while this isn't about immunity, it has some similar considerations related to actions.
But right, there's a general principle that states can't prosecute federal issues because the federal government must be superior to the states. That includes official acts of a president since he'd be acting on behalf of the federal government.
Imagine if Texas had the ability to take down the federal government by arresting Biden. That's why states can't prosecute presidents, and why this removal process exists.
But the Supreme Court is intentionally not a representative body, that's the Congress. There's no reason at all that SCOTUS should have followed demographic developments.
It's not its role in the federal system, and that threatens to obstruct the branch that IS to be representative.
@crispius@mstdn.crispius.ca the real answer is: voting.
The protection against fascist packing of the court is us not electing representatives who will actively participate in such a move.
All too often Americans overlook the power of their votes--all two few actually realize how their government even operates--as we keep reelecting the exact representatives working against our wants.
We really need to spend more time emphasizing the importance of holding representatives accountable for their actions and stop reelecting the bad ones.
Too often reps will point blame at presidents and judges for their own screwups.
That applies here.
@GerhardD and ONLY for official--that is legal--acts.
That's right, a president can't prosecute his predecessor for something that was legal.
THIS is what Biden's trying to score political points by misleading his base over.
@oligneisti nobody is allowing former presidents to do whatever they like.
The Supreme Court ruling specifically called for prosecuting former presidents for their crimes.
Yes, there's a lot of misinformation floating around out there, and it needs to be countered.
@huxley no, it's not quite right that the Supreme Court gets to decide what is an official act.
The US legal system is built on a process of consensus both among the branches but also up and down throughout the judicial branch. The Supreme Court is just one cog in this large process.
Technically, yes, the Supreme Court could hand down a piece of paper stating corruptly that something is an official act unilaterally, but if we're really going down that road then none of the rest matters anyway, and it's all null since the Court could issue an opinion saying anything at all.
@rameshgupta
@xs4me2 I did read the article. It came across as gaslighting.
I'm looking at the video with my own eyes, but the article is assuring me that the thing I'm seeing isn't what I'm seeing.
@stochastic today's Supreme Court wrote a ruling specifically saying that the president cannot prosecute people for things that are legal.
Ruling after ruling this term emphasized the limits on the president's power.
Yes, I know there are a lot of people lying about what the Supreme Court said this term, and you should not believe them. They are lying to you. Read the rulings and you'll see that a whole lot of people are spreading lies.
This Supreme Court wrote rulings specifically saying that Trump should be prosecuted.
Again, there are a lot of people lying to you these days. Go straight to the source and realize that you should not believe the people spreading that propaganda.
@xs4me2 checking out the video, it was clearly parody.
There's no question about it.
@Newk Trump also advertises voting. Is voting a scam?
There's an old fallacy about the proportion of serial killers who drink milk...
@MichalBryxi yep, so in my opinion we need to move to ranked choice voting. Sounds like you probably agree.
But the point is, The two major party system emerges as a way to mitigate problems with first past the post voting. It's a solution, not a problem. A better solution would be some sort of ranked choice voting, but until we get there, we will naturally have two parties because that's the next best outcome that voters will choose.
We can use displeasure with the outcomes of two-party results as a rallying cry for better voting system. But we can't attack it directly without losing that mitigating factor.
@rbreich first of all they increased revenue collections to the US Treasury, as predicted.
But secondly, what do you think a stock buyback is? It's a corporation giving up its money into the rest of the economy, which is what we want them to do in general anyway!
Stock buybacks are a good thing, as it represents a corporation taking money that it has that it can't use and giving it up for other people and other purposes to use as they need.
Including the US government.
@lety Well what specific quotes from her press releases are you referring to?
Lashing out at Trump doesn't make it clear. There's a whole lot of bullshit that lashes out at Trump.
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
