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
@ZySoua There oughta be an algorithm...
;)
volkris
boosted
#SeanHannity: How dare these Democrats put out an ad telling members of the US military that they don't have to carry out "unlawful orders"? That's so dangerous! [n.b.: he's the one who identified them as unlawful orders. His description. Not my editorializing] #USPolitics
You're missing how the process works.
No, the SCOTUS didn't limit the agency's power. Instead it recognized that *Congress* had limited its power.
Alito didn't explicitly define a relatively permanent body because that wasn't his job, as they weren't there to limit the agency's power. It was up to Congress, not him, to set those limits and definitions.
Now the agency is clarifying its view of Congress's definition.
Again, that's not the SCOTUS doing that. Because that's not how the courts work in the US.
It's kind of circular reasoning, though: the US turned away from a certain policy direction and this says the US has turned away from it.
Well yeah!
I don't think that's quite right.
They're not behaving as if the laws have been repealed, but as if they weren't valid in the first place.
The difference in the distinction is political vs legal.
But yes, they're getting into legal trouble based on it.
Listening to #BBC broadcasts reminds that a lot of folks internationally (and unfortunately a lot of folks in the US) don't really understand how the US government is structured when it comes to things like the #Epstein file issue.
Procedurally, it's much more complicated than "Just release the files!"
(The following is brief illustration of the situation)
At the surface, the act of Congress is rather pointless. With coequal branches, Congress lacks authority to order the Executive to release anyway, so the passage is only symbolic. #Trump could have released the documents he had at any point, or not released them, and that doesn't change here.
BUT complicating this is that Congress already passed laws that sought to restrict the release of such documents. So it's one symbol running into another and an Executive playing them off each other.
Media reports really miss the nuances of the structure in this arrangement, as parliamentary systems don't really have these.
The #Texas redistricting case points directly at the mess that VRA has caused, which landed the law in front of the #SCOTUS earlier this year.
In the district court's order blocking the new map you can see arguments echoing those against the VRA in the Supreme Court.
I think a lot of people are going to be upset about the VRA challenge but celebrate the Texas ruling without realizing their contradiction.
@b7bird.bsky.social keep in mind that with the co-equal branches design of the US government this doesn't really blow anything up. It doesn't really even require Trump to do anything. Congress can't order around the coequal Branch like that.
On the other hand, Republicans are using this as rhetorical ammunition against Democrats.
volkris
boosted
Senator #JoniErnst interviewed by #BrianKilmeade: No, I haven't been briefed on a plan for #Venezuela. Am I worried about the US conducting a ground invasion? Well the territory is very difficult, but we have the best fighters on Earth! Also #Trump is the peace pres. pushing stability. #USPolitics
Here's a link to the #Epstein files bill that the #House is to vote on.
https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr4405/BILLS-119hr4405ih.pdf
That's good news!
More to the point, a lower court killed the immigration policy, and an appeals court affirmed the lower court.
Trump wants #SCOTUS to rule on whether the lower courts misread the statute.
Trump is asking to red light the lower court's reading that a person has arrived in the US while they're still in a different country.
In his role as president, Trump is authorized by this statute to punish people using the likeness.
Whether in his role as CEO or world class dirtbag he's doing something different is a separate matter.
As president here he's not acting to punish people despite being authorized to punish people if he sees fit.
This is a president not acting, whether there's also a CEO that is.
Siiiigh
A senator(?) being interviewed on #ClayAndBuck:Rand Paul says the Constitution doesn't give #Trump the authority to blow up boats, but where doesn...
Every once in awhile even Trump's most die hard supporters and activists start to feel the cognitive bias and have to stumble around to try to maintain their support for the guy...
#ClayAndBuck: Wait... There's something weird about how #Trump started killing people in boats saying it was for deterrence, and yet they are stil...
Extrajudicial killings came up at February DOJ gathering: "Bove's remarks, which have not previously been publicly reported, suggest at least some ...
Yeah, one thing that didn't get enough emphasis at SCOTUS oral arguments is that this refund process is already largely handled by US law.
It wouldn't cause chaos to issue the refunds since there are already systems in place to manage it. Adjustments are just part of life for these trade activities, so the refund would be just another adjustment, albeit a particularly large one.
The SCOTUS brought this up at argument, but I believe at the moment they misunderstood the answer.
Hopefully this was clarified starkly through briefs.
@glynmoody @JonChevreau
@six_grandfathers_mountain the key is your word "can do".
This would be about something not being done. The president is not going after these people.
It's a case of prosecutorial discretion. The administration doesn't consider it worthwhile to bring the hammer down on folks making beer pong paraphernalia.
@amalia22 yeah, Republicans have been celebrating how well Trump did with latinos.
@wms SCOTUS specifically refused to allow a person to be picked up merely because of skin color.
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:
