4 ms·

You can see the hot emotions right in the dissent. Sonia Sotomayor is writing this is a threat to democracy. That carries a lot of weight. Try this live reacti

by tootie 2y ago

You can see the hot emotions right in the dissent. Sonia Sotomayor is writing this is a threat to democracy. That carries a lot of weight. Try this live reaction from the Lawfare crew: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-live--scotus-rules-on-presidential-immunity https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-live--scotus-ru... They are ripping this apart not just on it's merits, but how oddly it's constructed. They established a framework for assigning immunity and then leave completely open what the test is to assign actions to the framework, then list a bunch of Trump's activities that are definitely immune and none that are not, and then Clarence Thomas says the DOJ can't empower special counsels apropos of nothing (except the documents case that is not before the court).

gunapologist99 2y ago
You're right, this is a high-emotion one and probably doesn't belong on HN at all, since it is just devolving into a poorly informed flame war. (although Lawfare itself is not an objective observer either.)
- tootie 2y ago
  Lawfare is a very well-informed source and I think at this point we should really quit pretending that "liberal" sources are biased in any meaningful way and that their staunch opposition to the political right is thoroughly justified on objective grounds. This decision is a bad one. Previous decisions by the conservative justices that were derided by the left have been bad for the country in tangible ways. They were appointed by a guy who lead an insurrection. Who committed a load of crimes they are fine with him getting away with. Strict construction isn't even a fig leaf on much of what they're writing
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Rhetoric like this is how we got Trump in the first place. You don't even try to understand the other side, you rest easy in knowing that you are objectively right and they're objectively wrong. It doesn't even particularly matter if you're right or wrong on the merits, as long as the Left talks like this the Right will be ascendant. You don't tame populism by being condescending, that only fans the flames.
    - tootie 2y ago
      I don't need to understand the voters to know they're causing a very bad outcome. Trying to assert some sort of equivalence is what got us here.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        What got us here is a huge percentage of the population feeling disenfranchised and cut off by a condescending elite. A sociopathic demagogue recognized those people and made them feel seen, and you and the Democratic party still just don't get it. That's why we're here, and we'll stay here as long as the Left continues to condescend to them.
        techdragon 2y ago
        Ok… so looking from the outside in Australia… a country with mandatory voting that always happens on weekends to make it incredibly easy for people to do their civic duty, thus allowing us to levy a fine against anyone who doesn’t vote… with electoral divisions and regional boundaries managed by a specific government department that has been structured so as to prevent politicians doing any gerrymandering… In the USA it’s clear that voter suppression and gerrymandering have allowed for partisan groups of elites with both progressive and conservative views to hold onto power for decades as the voting public they represent feels more and more like their vote does not matter, or that they are unable to vote due to their financial situation (no time off, no money for transit, no money for required identification, required identification needs a fixed address and their homeless, etc)… it’s pretty dire… and I have always been kind of shocked how it’s managed to limp along with such statically low voter turnout for decades… money is speech (citizens united) and media are allowed to treat made up news as entertainment with no need to distinguish really from fiction (FCC vs Fox News)… I don’t see any way the situation doesn’t eventually lead to demagoguery… because at some point your public is just so disenfranchised that a demagogue doesn’t have much work to do beyond “I’m not them, get the fuck out and vote for me so I can change things”… But the problem with a demagogue is that even if they don’t turn dictator, they are by nature of their rise to power, going to be very dictator like, it’s their choice, their charisma, their force of will that motivated the voting public… the only problem is that the checks and balances to prevent the demagogue from becoming a dictator, have only been barely tested, first with FDR, then with Nixon, one who died before the change to the system was relevant, the other begrudgingly bowed out before the system had to fully engage with the issue... How would you do it better?
lolinder 2y ago
> Sonia Sotomayor is writing this is a threat to democracy. That carries a lot of weight. Frankly, it doesn't carry much weight with me. The dissents this cycle have increasingly felt like they're more political tools to try to rile up the Democratic base for the next election than they are legal opinions sincerely held. They're written to have maximum quotability and memetic transmission, and that means they're constantly emotionally charged. (Note that I'm saying this as a Biden voter who really wishes that Trump weren't poised to take office.)
- waciki 2y ago
  > (Note that I'm saying this as a Biden voter who really wishes that Trump weren't poised to take office.) I don't understand people going on an obviously one sided political rant and then going "don't hit me I vote for the good guys trust me !", it's not subtle.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    I don't understand people who can't believe that someone could actually hold a complicated set of political perspectives that don't align well with any one party's platform. There's obviously no way for me to prove it, but I cast a protest vote in 2016 and voted Biden in 2020. I'm exhausted by both parties but currently hate Trump enough to vote Democrat. Hating Trump doesn't mean I have to approve of manipulative hyperbole in Supreme Court dissents.
- tootie 2y ago
  I think they're written by people observing the real world and not quoting the federalist papers as gospel.

by tootie 2y ago

gunapologist99 2y ago

You're right, this is a high-emotion one and probably doesn't belong on HN at all, since it is just devolving into a poorly informed flame war. (although Lawfare itself is not an objective observer either.)

tootie 2y ago
Lawfare is a very well-informed source and I think at this point we should really quit pretending that "liberal" sources are biased in any meaningful way and that their staunch opposition to the political right is thoroughly justified on objective grounds. This decision is a bad one. Previous decisions by the conservative justices that were derided by the left have been bad for the country in tangible ways. They were appointed by a guy who lead an insurrection. Who committed a load of crimes they are fine with him getting away with. Strict construction isn't even a fig leaf on much of what they're writing
- lolinder 2y ago
  Rhetoric like this is how we got Trump in the first place. You don't even try to understand the other side, you rest easy in knowing that you are objectively right and they're objectively wrong. It doesn't even particularly matter if you're right or wrong on the merits, as long as the Left talks like this the Right will be ascendant. You don't tame populism by being condescending, that only fans the flames.
  - tootie 2y ago
    I don't need to understand the voters to know they're causing a very bad outcome. Trying to assert some sort of equivalence is what got us here.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      What got us here is a huge percentage of the population feeling disenfranchised and cut off by a condescending elite. A sociopathic demagogue recognized those people and made them feel seen, and you and the Democratic party still just don't get it. That's why we're here, and we'll stay here as long as the Left continues to condescend to them.
      - techdragon 2y ago
        Ok… so looking from the outside in Australia… a country with mandatory voting that always happens on weekends to make it incredibly easy for people to do their civic duty, thus allowing us to levy a fine against anyone who doesn’t vote… with electoral divisions and regional boundaries managed by a specific government department that has been structured so as to prevent politicians doing any gerrymandering… In the USA it’s clear that voter suppression and gerrymandering have allowed for partisan groups of elites with both progressive and conservative views to hold onto power for decades as the voting public they represent feels more and more like their vote does not matter, or that they are unable to vote due to their financial situation (no time off, no money for transit, no money for required identification, required identification needs a fixed address and their homeless, etc)… it’s pretty dire… and I have always been kind of shocked how it’s managed to limp along with such statically low voter turnout for decades… money is speech (citizens united) and media are allowed to treat made up news as entertainment with no need to distinguish really from fiction (FCC vs Fox News)… I don’t see any way the situation doesn’t eventually lead to demagoguery… because at some point your public is just so disenfranchised that a demagogue doesn’t have much work to do beyond “I’m not them, get the fuck out and vote for me so I can change things”… But the problem with a demagogue is that even if they don’t turn dictator, they are by nature of their rise to power, going to be very dictator like, it’s their choice, their charisma, their force of will that motivated the voting public… the only problem is that the checks and balances to prevent the demagogue from becoming a dictator, have only been barely tested, first with FDR, then with Nixon, one who died before the change to the system was relevant, the other begrudgingly bowed out before the system had to fully engage with the issue... How would you do it better?

lolinder 2y ago

> Sonia Sotomayor is writing this is a threat to democracy. That carries a lot of weight. Frankly, it doesn't carry much weight with me. The dissents this cycle have increasingly felt like they're more political tools to try to rile up the Democratic base for the next election than they are legal opinions sincerely held. They're written to have maximum quotability and memetic transmission, and that means they're constantly emotionally charged. (Note that I'm saying this as a Biden voter who really wishes that Trump weren't poised to take office.)

waciki 2y ago
> (Note that I'm saying this as a Biden voter who really wishes that Trump weren't poised to take office.) I don't understand people going on an obviously one sided political rant and then going "don't hit me I vote for the good guys trust me !", it's not subtle.
- lolinder 2y ago
  I don't understand people who can't believe that someone could actually hold a complicated set of political perspectives that don't align well with any one party's platform. There's obviously no way for me to prove it, but I cast a protest vote in 2016 and voted Biden in 2020. I'm exhausted by both parties but currently hate Trump enough to vote Democrat. Hating Trump doesn't mean I have to approve of manipulative hyperbole in Supreme Court dissents.
tootie 2y ago
I think they're written by people observing the real world and not quoting the federalist papers as gospel.