Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. @kims @Urban_Hermit @mattblaze I have a hopeful feeling that they'll be prosecuted.

@kims @Urban_Hermit @mattblaze I have a hopeful feeling that they'll be prosecuted.

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
15 Indlæg 6 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • berniedoesit@mstdn.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
    berniedoesit@mstdn.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
    berniedoesit@mstdn.social
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #1

    @kims @Urban_Hermit @mattblaze I have a hopeful feeling that they'll be prosecuted.

    urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • berniedoesit@mstdn.socialB berniedoesit@mstdn.social

      @kims @Urban_Hermit @mattblaze I have a hopeful feeling that they'll be prosecuted.

      urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
      urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
      urban_hermit@mstdn.social
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #2

      @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze I heard a theory that our national politics will swing back like a pendulum and the next democratic president will be the anticorruption president.

      A.) Every branch of government is controlled by the GOP, a party that puts staying in power to prevent accountability over fairness, justice, and the health of the country. They will do everything unthinkable to not relinquish power.

      B.) If any future democrat advocates for clemency and moving on, I will riot.

      sparsematrix@defcon.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU urban_hermit@mstdn.social

        @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze I heard a theory that our national politics will swing back like a pendulum and the next democratic president will be the anticorruption president.

        A.) Every branch of government is controlled by the GOP, a party that puts staying in power to prevent accountability over fairness, justice, and the health of the country. They will do everything unthinkable to not relinquish power.

        B.) If any future democrat advocates for clemency and moving on, I will riot.

        sparsematrix@defcon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
        sparsematrix@defcon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
        sparsematrix@defcon.social
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #3

        @Urban_Hermit @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze

        The Judiciary is not completely compromised, nor are the military. These are key points to understand.

        It also bears noting that while the old guard in the Democratic Party is demonstrably in the game for themselves at this point, there is new blood in the party and more coming up, and they are pissed and motivated and wont be shut down.

        And never forget that Bernie has been in there trying to keep them honest since he was a young man, and he's still hittin' em high and low.

        urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • sparsematrix@defcon.socialS sparsematrix@defcon.social

          @Urban_Hermit @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze

          The Judiciary is not completely compromised, nor are the military. These are key points to understand.

          It also bears noting that while the old guard in the Democratic Party is demonstrably in the game for themselves at this point, there is new blood in the party and more coming up, and they are pissed and motivated and wont be shut down.

          And never forget that Bernie has been in there trying to keep them honest since he was a young man, and he's still hittin' em high and low.

          urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
          urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
          urban_hermit@mstdn.social
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #4

          @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze I know for a fact that some judges have been publicly saying "what's the point?" and have been writing rulings based on sound legal principals while believing that no amount of justification and precedent will prevent this Supreme Court from potentially over ruling them.

          And the far right has been promoting religion and racism in the military ranks for decades and trying to get the learned generals of principal fired for being "too woke".

          berniedoesit@mstdn.socialB 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU urban_hermit@mstdn.social

            @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze I know for a fact that some judges have been publicly saying "what's the point?" and have been writing rulings based on sound legal principals while believing that no amount of justification and precedent will prevent this Supreme Court from potentially over ruling them.

            And the far right has been promoting religion and racism in the military ranks for decades and trying to get the learned generals of principal fired for being "too woke".

            berniedoesit@mstdn.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
            berniedoesit@mstdn.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
            berniedoesit@mstdn.social
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #5

            @Urban_Hermit @sparseMatrix @kims @mattblaze Impeaching and removing the corrupt Supreme Court members is going to have to be one of the first things they do, or nothing else is going to work.

            sparsematrix@defcon.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • berniedoesit@mstdn.socialB berniedoesit@mstdn.social

              @Urban_Hermit @sparseMatrix @kims @mattblaze Impeaching and removing the corrupt Supreme Court members is going to have to be one of the first things they do, or nothing else is going to work.

              sparsematrix@defcon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
              sparsematrix@defcon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
              sparsematrix@defcon.social
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #6

              @BernieDoesIt @Urban_Hermit @kims @mattblaze

              We can do better than impeach them. We can leave them sitting right where they are, acknowledge their humanity, and expand the court into a large panel from which judges are selected by lot to impanel a sitting bench on a per case basis.

              This entirely divests them of any opportunity to carry out a hidden agenda.

              This has the benefit that it does not remove any of the assholes cherished by the right; it simply removes from them a power that they were never intended to have.

              pinsk@freeradical.zoneP 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • sparsematrix@defcon.socialS sparsematrix@defcon.social

                @BernieDoesIt @Urban_Hermit @kims @mattblaze

                We can do better than impeach them. We can leave them sitting right where they are, acknowledge their humanity, and expand the court into a large panel from which judges are selected by lot to impanel a sitting bench on a per case basis.

                This entirely divests them of any opportunity to carry out a hidden agenda.

                This has the benefit that it does not remove any of the assholes cherished by the right; it simply removes from them a power that they were never intended to have.

                pinsk@freeradical.zoneP This user is from outside of this forum
                pinsk@freeradical.zoneP This user is from outside of this forum
                pinsk@freeradical.zone
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #7

                @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @Urban_Hermit @kims @mattblaze

                Unpack the courts:
                redistrict the appellate circuits into 15 according to census data and caseload history, make justices ride circuit only one each (appointing six new), then your proposal to hear cases with 9 justices selected by lottery

                urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • pinsk@freeradical.zoneP pinsk@freeradical.zone

                  @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @Urban_Hermit @kims @mattblaze

                  Unpack the courts:
                  redistrict the appellate circuits into 15 according to census data and caseload history, make justices ride circuit only one each (appointing six new), then your proposal to hear cases with 9 justices selected by lottery

                  urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                  urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                  urban_hermit@mstdn.social
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #8

                  @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze

                  I was work shopping this idea: every 4 year presidential term gets one supreme court pick. Exactly one, and the number of justices on the SC expands or contracts naturally, according to mortality.

                  If the country chooses 60% conservative presidents then the court reflects this, as is appropriate in a democracy, but it is gaming resistant.

                  If the court is tied on a decision, 4 to 4, 8 to 8, 12 to 12 - then the lower court decision stands.

                  urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU urban_hermit@mstdn.social

                    @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze

                    I was work shopping this idea: every 4 year presidential term gets one supreme court pick. Exactly one, and the number of justices on the SC expands or contracts naturally, according to mortality.

                    If the country chooses 60% conservative presidents then the court reflects this, as is appropriate in a democracy, but it is gaming resistant.

                    If the court is tied on a decision, 4 to 4, 8 to 8, 12 to 12 - then the lower court decision stands.

                    urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                    urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                    urban_hermit@mstdn.social
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #9

                    @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
                    I stopped working on this idea because I wasn't sure if the SC would constantly expand. What would a court of 200+ justices look like. Would it be manageable? Would there be benefits if a SC basically replaced a legislative branch, as all laws are basically already written? Going forward through history, there is a point were the interpretation of existing law becomes more important than legislatively passing new tax loopholes.

                    quasit@kolektiva.socialQ 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU urban_hermit@mstdn.social

                      @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
                      I stopped working on this idea because I wasn't sure if the SC would constantly expand. What would a court of 200+ justices look like. Would it be manageable? Would there be benefits if a SC basically replaced a legislative branch, as all laws are basically already written? Going forward through history, there is a point were the interpretation of existing law becomes more important than legislatively passing new tax loopholes.

                      quasit@kolektiva.socialQ This user is from outside of this forum
                      quasit@kolektiva.socialQ This user is from outside of this forum
                      quasit@kolektiva.social
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #10

                      @Urban_Hermit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze

                      This might sound crazy, but what if we expanded the Supreme Court to include every voter in the United States? It's not like they need to meet in person anyway. And lobbyists and billionaires would have to bribe the whole country, or a substantial portion of it. I think it's a tempting idea!

                      urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • quasit@kolektiva.socialQ quasit@kolektiva.social

                        @Urban_Hermit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze

                        This might sound crazy, but what if we expanded the Supreme Court to include every voter in the United States? It's not like they need to meet in person anyway. And lobbyists and billionaires would have to bribe the whole country, or a substantial portion of it. I think it's a tempting idea!

                        urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                        urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                        urban_hermit@mstdn.social
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #11

                        @Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze it is a version of absolute, direct democracy.

                        What if we replaced the Senate with direct democracy. Every person electronically votes on every bill, and the House exists just to write the bills and vote them up for review.

                        It would have many problems, what if some parties are for simplicity, while others pack bills with deceptive language or make them too long to be adequately reviewed. But all reforms have problems to work out.

                        oldfartrant@mstdn.caO 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU urban_hermit@mstdn.social

                          @Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze it is a version of absolute, direct democracy.

                          What if we replaced the Senate with direct democracy. Every person electronically votes on every bill, and the House exists just to write the bills and vote them up for review.

                          It would have many problems, what if some parties are for simplicity, while others pack bills with deceptive language or make them too long to be adequately reviewed. But all reforms have problems to work out.

                          oldfartrant@mstdn.caO This user is from outside of this forum
                          oldfartrant@mstdn.caO This user is from outside of this forum
                          oldfartrant@mstdn.ca
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #12

                          @Urban_Hermit @Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
                          Bills can be hundreds or more pages long. I don't want to read all that. Before voting.

                          urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • oldfartrant@mstdn.caO oldfartrant@mstdn.ca

                            @Urban_Hermit @Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
                            Bills can be hundreds or more pages long. I don't want to read all that. Before voting.

                            urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                            urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
                            urban_hermit@mstdn.social
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #13

                            @Oldfartrant @Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze we have ballot initiatives in Oregon, it wouldn't be all that different.

                            oldfartrant@mstdn.caO 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • urban_hermit@mstdn.socialU urban_hermit@mstdn.social

                              @Oldfartrant @Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze we have ballot initiatives in Oregon, it wouldn't be all that different.

                              oldfartrant@mstdn.caO This user is from outside of this forum
                              oldfartrant@mstdn.caO This user is from outside of this forum
                              oldfartrant@mstdn.ca
                              wrote sidst redigeret af
                              #14

                              @Urban_Hermit @Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
                              A ballot initiative is usually a one issue bill which is digestible by most people. A wide ranging bill making multiple changes in multiple areas is a completely different entity. It could be possible but would it be worth the trouble? Only if pork and favours could be stricken before voting.

                              quasit@kolektiva.socialQ 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • oldfartrant@mstdn.caO oldfartrant@mstdn.ca

                                @Urban_Hermit @Quasit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze
                                A ballot initiative is usually a one issue bill which is digestible by most people. A wide ranging bill making multiple changes in multiple areas is a completely different entity. It could be possible but would it be worth the trouble? Only if pork and favours could be stricken before voting.

                                quasit@kolektiva.socialQ This user is from outside of this forum
                                quasit@kolektiva.socialQ This user is from outside of this forum
                                quasit@kolektiva.social
                                wrote sidst redigeret af
                                #15

                                @Oldfartrant @Urban_Hermit @pinsk @sparseMatrix @BernieDoesIt @kims @mattblaze

                                Seems to me that giant complicated bills are always used to sneak in a bunch of unrelated stuff that is terrible for the people. Maybe that means that bills should be required to address just one topic each. Need to address more topics? Write more bills. But none of those thousand-page monstrosities written by industry lobbyists.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                1
                                0
                                • jwcph@helvede.netJ jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
                                Svar
                                • Svar som emne
                                Login for at svare
                                • Ældste til nyeste
                                • Nyeste til ældste
                                • Most Votes


                                • Log ind

                                • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                                • Login or register to search.
                                Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                Graciously hosted by data.coop
                                • First post
                                  Last post
                                0
                                • Hjem
                                • Seneste
                                • Etiketter
                                • Populære
                                • Verden
                                • Bruger
                                • Grupper