volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@TexasObserver I mean, that's not the role of the courts. The courts would be shirking their jobs if they had ruled otherwise.

It's the wrong branch of government to deal with these issues.

@ppatel he has spent a lot of time attacking people other than white men.

@TCatInReality

Firstly, reality is there is no independance. Whether you like it or not, the reality that we are living in, the way the US government is structured, the DOJ doesn't have its own branch. It is by definition dependent on the president, subservient to the president.

That's just part of the fundamental structure of the US government, and it's important to recognize that reality.

But moving on, you bring up Trump, and I rush to emphasize that Trump got away with skirting responsibility for DOJ actions by saying they are independent. We should have emphasized that Trump was responsible for all the things that even his own supporters are complaining about!

Even when it comes to Trump, he's a great example of how the notion of an independent DOJ allows presidents to escape responsibility and accountability.

Had Trump been held accountable for the actions of his DOJ we might not be facing his possible reelection today.

@BostonGlobe

@TCatInReality Why?

What good comes from a norm that allows a powerful person to escape accountability?

@BostonGlobe

@iag2u that causes a lot of problems, not the least of which is, what if two different panels comes to different conclusions?

There is tremendous value in the US system that there is only one Supreme Court, not rolls of dice providing different Courts.

@ppatel maybe they're just not that interesting.

@old_hippie but that sort of begs the question.

We need to be deciding whether to nominate Harris based on her positions and likelihood of winning the election, and that's going to involve facing the music.

If we don't see how well she performs before the convention we could end up nominating someone who'll bomb after it's too late.

@TCatInReality
I'd go from the other direction: we should demand that Biden do his job, and hold him accountable for failing to do it, and use this as a great opportunity to show the public how dumb that norm is in the first place.

I'd approach it as ending the practice of allowing presidents to shirk accountability by hiding behind that norm.

@BostonGlobe

@iag2u if you double the Supreme Court then things would take LONGER to resolve as that means more justices trading more briefs back and forth to come to consensus.

@DoesntExist@mastodon.social the EPA says Congress intended the agency to take these actions, right?

Well, if the EPA is correct, then the Supreme Court ruling SUPPORTS the agency's orders, reinforcing them and even mandating them.

All the Court said was that administrations must follow the law. If EPA is right about its legal standing, then it could cite the Supreme Court just as well.

@nathans don't forget that ending the filibuster is a double-edged sword, as it would allow Republicans to do the same things.

After all, Democrats' end of the judicial filibuster opened the door to Republicans appointing the judges that got us to where we are today.

@ShutterbugDoug they're part of the same government.

No need for an EPA order. If the president wants the cleanup done, he could simply direct that it be done.

@TCatInReality Biden doesn't need immunity or demands to do that.

The DOJ works for him. Biden already has the authority to conduct such an investigation.

Always has had.

@BostonGlobe

@SCampbell hm? What's my task?

If you care about Trump, and I'm not saying you should, and I would actually say you probably shouldn't, here's what it is.

@donm

@SCampbell

Again, just because whoever you're getting your information from is not relaying that to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

TO BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR I think he's an awful human being that has no place anywhere near the presidency, but I also recognize that one reason that he has purchased with his base is because he does have genuine belly laughs.

And the reason I'm emphasizing this is because if we want to counter the guy and oppose him we have to realize that his voters vote for him because of those moments, many of them at least.

It's like refusing to see one of the major weapons that an enemy has.

Yes, the guy has genuine laughs. Oftentimes they are the laughs of a complete idiot who doesn't know anything about the world, but that's part of how he connects with voters.

We need to appreciate that so we can counter it.

@donm

@jonny in that case I'm not sure what problem you're running into, because I have no problem getting a lot of data out of IPFS.

I would understand if you're not able to receive giant files from the system. That's not really what it's for.

But I get bits of data out of it all the time, so if you're not, I can only imagine you have some sort of user error happening on your side.

@mhoye

@donm Well right, that fits within my confirmation bias argument.

This is the huge difference between he never laughs versus the subset of information that I get from my sources don't show me him laughing.

That's the whole point.

@ScruffyJunco

So how do we work on addressing that problem?

@jstatepost @lexfri

@tinkel That's not how the US government works, though.

Presidents don't have such unilateral power.

This is yet more self-serving sensationalism out of propublica.