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
@cwarzel.bsky.social of course.
This administration is extremely responsive to the sentimentality of its base, and this plays into it.
Not much the US citizen can do? US citizens elected these congresspeople who are enabling the situation. Maybe US citizens have done enough!
But to be serious, if you don't like what's happening then work to oust your congresspeople. That's the way this works.
US citizens can at the least stop reelecting the congresspeople who are failing to change the direction of the federal government.
@georgetakei
@Wileymiller it's important to emphasize that no, there's not much the court can do because it's the wrong branch of government: it's Congress, not the Court, that's authorized to, and accountable to voters for, doing what they determine is needed with regard to the executive.
This isn't the end of democracy in the country. It IS democracy in the country. We elected congresspeople who are enabling all of this, so democracy is guiding this whole thing.
@old_hippie that's the opposite of what they ruled.
SCOTUS invited the judicial branch to scrutinize presidential actions for whether they are legal and thus part of his duties.
@Nonilex just because you personally haven't heard it doesn't mean there hasn't been a mention of it. It just means your window to the world may be a bit narrow.
YES, conservative media has not only mentioned but actually harped on it.
The White House generally follows whatever is going around the media. It doesn't lead; it parrots conservative memes.
@kgw well there's not much SCOTUS can do. They have intentionally limited authority.
The US system is designed so that it's Congress, not the judicial branch, that has authority to respond to cases like this.
But so far we're letting Congress defer to the executive, especially by letting them pass the buck to the Court.
@Nonilex it's not the Justices being played for fools. They know exactly what's going on.
But they also have intentionally limited jurisdiction and authority. In the US system separation of powers limits what they can do, regardless of the motives of those arguing before them.
In the end the proper response to this goes through Congress, not the SCOTUS. We're ALL being played for fools when we don't recognize that.
@bespacific there is another reason: we keep electing congresspeople who run based on false claims about how the US government functions.
It's a simple explanation. No need for any conspiratorial talk, just politicians lying for reelection.
Occam's Razor would have us consider that ahead of simulation theory... and have us stop accepting politicians saying things that run afoul of basic civics.
No. Congress is the problem, and we shouldn't be letting all this other stuff distract from that.
The court system and SCOTUS are generally working, in the same way that a computer works even if it's fed bad data and so gives bad results.
Congress sets the rules and holds the executive to account according to the judgement of those we elect. We just keep electing and reelecting crap politicians. We should stop reelecting them.
BUT, one factor in their reelection is that we buy into their passing the buck to other branches, letting them blame others for exactly the things they have power to address.
@old_hippie this juxtaposition is why it's not a slam dunk. This is a problem made by Congress, and we haven't held congresspeople accountable for making it:
"Trump's use of emergency powers to bypass Congress and unilaterally impose tariffs on most of the world. The plaintiffs are arguing that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1997"
So Trump isn't bypassing Congress as Congress already approved the authority... stupidly. Congress shouldn't have, and it should have canceled the authorization already.
The question now is one of nondelegation, and the Court would have to upend a TON of precedent to rule against the administration.
@Rasta they didn't, though.
The Supreme Court ordered proceedings against Trump to continue in the lower courts.
The Supreme Court ruled to give Trump the absolute immunity that he requested. They ruled against him, saying that anything he did illegal while in office is fair game for prosecution.
What the court said was that a sitting president cannot prosecute a former president without legal basis. If anything the ruling binds Trump's hands now saying that he can't prosecute Biden without cause.
So many have pushed the exact opposite story of what the court opinion actually said.
I think a lot of this comes out of decades of norms that misunderstand how computers work, fundamentally.
From how politicians talk through how courts have grappled with addressing legal questions, we've really leaned into this abstraction of cyberspace instead of concrete ideas that yes, there is a server, and yes, it is actively processing data somewhere tangible.
It would be very healthy to address accountability in the things you mention to be able to say, Wait, wait, where exactly is your server? Who can we [figuratively] punch in the face for how it behaves?
It's a big ship to turn around, though, and I see no movement to do it.
Mainstream Republican media has devolved into children on the playground stomping their feet and yelling "Not fair!" every time they lose a game they don't even understand.
All the hyperventilating about fascism is unhelpful, but they're just annoyingly pathetic.
They're not even interesting most of the time.
@drrjv that's not what it decided.
@Rasta The Supreme Court is controlled by its members.
It's ruled against Trump plenty, disproving these nutty conspiracy theories about a felon controlling it.
@Nerde no, that's the opposite of what the SCOTUS ruled. So many outlets misreport that, though.
The Court not only said the president couldn't break the law, but it explicitly ordered court proceedings against the former president to continue.
We really need to correct this record.
@grumble209 close!
In this case it's more about separation of powers. The Constitution is careful not to give too much power to unelected justices with lifetime appointments.
Instead, the power against the executive branch is handed to the congresspeople we elect and should be holding accountable.
As you say, it's not a bug, it's a feature, and it's holding strong... for better or worse.
If we cared about this then we'd elect representatives who'd use their authorities against the administration.
That's on us, and the Court knows it doesn't have that power.
@andytseng.bsky.social
@claynobles.bsky.social Well there's a simple and important answer: so many people lost faith in government over the years and began to think of the system as terribly corrupt and oppressive, so they voted for the guy to dismantle the institution they believed had gone so far off track.
It's important to highlight the failure of government to maintain the support of its people. That's not a side factor in a representative government.
@alfiekohn I think quotes like that overlook that democracy isn't fragile, but in fact this is the strength of democracy giving us what we voted for even if maybe we shouldn't want that.
Democracy is strong. Maybe too strong if maybe we shouldn't be giving people such a say over their governments.
@Triddle But that highlights the critical lesson here: a convicted felon is allowed to run for president because the US has institutions to promote democratic choice.
If the people want to elect a convicted felon, well, they get what they want. Yay democracy!
The reason this needs to be highlighted is because the path to solid change isn't from forcing things top down but about engaging the general population that chose this path. There is no shortcut to going out and addressing the concerns of fellow voters.
So many people have forgotten that over the generations, and this is the predictable result.
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
