volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@PaulWermer

Really this is a question about blanket pardons, whether they're valid. Hopefully that gets challenged and cleared up sooner than later.

(It's also about what a pathetic loser Trump is spitting out dumb lines he thinks will get him laughs, and his sycophants that force laughs at lame jokes to make him happy)

But there's hardly corrupt intent here. Wanting attention or political pats on the head are pretty normal.

@stevevladeck.bsky.social

Arguably a ruling without explanation can't set precedent because without showing how it fits into a larger context it's just a one-off.

@Nonilex

Well, they're separate and independent issues, whether birthright citizenship is constitutional and ICE going after tourism networks.

I figure it's going to be yet another case of MAGA folks yelling that the boogeymen are everywhere, investigating, and then turning up only an instance or two, but claiming it proves them right.

@Miro_Collas

This is a pretty misleading analysis if nothing else because it doesn't really take into account statutory and cultural changes over the decades.

Yes, things are different now than they were in the '50s. So what sense does it make to compare now to the '50s?

@PaulWermer

We already saw exactly that play out, though. Democrats partnered with a couple of disgruntled Republicans to pass the motion to vacate and then held fast with them to prevent Republican speakers from taking the chair.

Until Democrats didn't.

The other thing is, remember that the Speaker isn't king. Much of the work of the House is shaped by things like committee membership, and Democrats have a TON of leverage to influence that.

They already demonstrated that they have this leverage. They're just not using it for presumably political reasons.

We should hold them accountable for that choice.

@paul

That's not what the reporting says, though. Even clicking your link about the original FP report it says nothing about propping up a false pope.

It sounded like a vague threat, yes. Troubling yes. But not so concrete and actionable as propping up a false pope.

@PaulWermer hmm, I was thinking of the Motion to Vacate whereby mainly Democrats put leadership changes on the table but then let Republicans have it back for some reason.

Now I remember that they made changes to that rule when they reconvened.

Still, there are simple majority processes in the House where Democrats could make significant gains by breaking off a tiny number of Republicans since their majority is so small.

@rachel

I think it's more that he just doesn't care. That's a factual matter, after all, and their whole thing is appearances and using terms that would engage with their base.

@jd

I felt the situation change when Netanyahu had the choice to give up the US relationship if it would keep him out of prosecution.

@PaulWermer

Nonsense. Democrats in Congress cooperated when they could have taken control of the House already.

The procedures are there, and they've been demonstrated.

Unless we're going to stop reelecting Democrats who aren't interested in putting up an opposition, we'll get more of the same, but the first step is pointing out their share of the responsibility.

@ErikJonker

@haljor

Really it's about electing congresspeople who will impeach this behavior.

We don't need an age limit. We just need to stop electing and reelecting ineffective congresspeople.

@ArtemisWinter

People say that, but when I actually go read opinions and listen to oral arguments, I don't think he's a wildcard at all. He seems pretty consistent has he addresses the actual questions before the Court.

A problem is that there's so much misreporting on the actual questions before the Court, and that's where that impression seems to come from.

When I see people complain about him being a wild card, often enough they're citing issues that miss what the Court actually did.

@DeliaChristina

@Nonilex

That's not an accurate reading of the order.

The lower court could have always acted on the request to dismiss; this doesn't free it to do so.

Instead, this tells the lower court that it has to at least address the issues raised in the request. They're really weighty issues, too, so it's not largely symbolic. They stand to have broader application far outside of Bannon.

Now the lower court can deny the request, but it has to at least consider it.

@tomminieminen

A lot of Americans may be hoping judges will save democracy, but that's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government is structured.

In the US, judges don't have such power or authority. Their branch is intentionally restrained, with authority put in the hands of the other branches more directly answerable to the people.

It's mainly up to Congress, the representatives we elect, to save democracy on our behalf. We need to elect better congresspeople, but too many give them a pass by focusing on the courts.