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
Alito and Thomas were appointed with the consent of the Senate. That's all it takes to be a legitimate justice under the US system.
So yes, they are legitimate.
Same goes to this nonsense about a stolen seat. No, every member on the court was appointed with the consent of the Senate.
It does no good to go down those dramatic narratives instead of just focusing on improving the world we actually live in.
Well, Roberts didn't rule in favor of Black voters last week. That wasn't a question before the Court.
Roberts did rule against a legislature trying to apply federal rights against a state court, though.
It's important to be clear about what the Court is and is not saying, as those are the precedents that work through the system.
And yet, somehow they manage to do good work.
The US system of checks and balances is designed to fit self-interested groups against each other, to check each others' evils, and produce positive outcomes even out of very flawed human beings.
SCOTUS is quite the exception that proves the rule, that shows how well designed governmental systems can actually function.
I wasn't referring to you specifically, but then I think your comment may have illustrated what I was saying pretty well :)
When someone's talking about context they're not talking about what the ruling actually said.
A lot of people do confuse those two, often saying they're talking about the ruling when they're really talking about their idea of context, speculation about what they think the ruling *means* while presenting that as what the ruling *says*.
It's the whole analysis vs factual reporting contrast.
@realcaseyrollins
Exactly!
We talk about legal durability, things that can be counted on, that won't be subject to the whims of a judge.
And so, if we want affirmative action to be durable, to be stable, then it needs to be sanctioned in law, same as with abortion issues.
So long as these issues are left up to judicial discretion we go year after year waiting to see if a judge is going to change their mind.
This is a matter for the legislative branch. SCOTUS here has removed its finger from the scale, giving us a great opportunity to have our democratic process resolve the matter.
The question before the court was over the application of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/20-01199qp.pdf
Folks complaining about the #SCOTUS ruling on admissions based on what society should do are missing that the Court doesn't have authority to judge based on evaluations of what we should do.
It is to judge based on what our democratic process has said, by law, that we should do.
If we need to change the law, great! Maybe we do need to revisit and update the Civil rights act of 1964.
So let's yell at the Congress to get that done.
Yelling at SCOTUS for acts of the legislature that they don't have power over is, if anything, distraction from making progress on legal reforms that are apparently needed.
The opinion goes through the ways in which these admissions systems run afoul of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
Yep.
Unfortunately, there is no alternative to reading things for oneself these days, since there is misinformation left and right.
What law did they make a ruling against?
The Constitution and various laws specifically single out race, so the Court had to apply those race-specific laws to this case.
Of course, we can petition the legislative branch to change the law if we want.
Read directly from the ruling.
SO many people on this platform are mischaracterizing what the ruling actually said.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
@KatM@mastodon.social
No, a president cannot unilaterally decide to violate the law like that.
They are not above the law.
@StillIRise1963
Sure, distortions aren't necessarily good or bad.
@dmm@mathstodon.xyz
I'm sure she is serious!
But her perspective is naive. It comes across as unserious to people who take the role of the Court seriously.
This is the sort of thing that many of us criticized her for when she was first nominated to the chair.
@lauren
They didn't decide, though.
That was decided through legislative branches, through the democratic process.
It wasn't SCOTUS's role to override our representatives in the democratic branch to support affirmative action if the country hasn't sanctioned it.
The determination of what we need or don't need to pursue is a matter for the legislative branch, though, not the judicial branch.
If you believe the US needs to pursue those goals, then push for them through legislation and Constitutional amendments.
These unelected judges have no role in overriding the democratic branch of government.
Setting the actual issue aside:
The funny thing about your post is that affirmative action is itself, by definition, about distortion.
So you're talking about distortion of distortion? I appreciate that :)
@dmm@mathstodon.xyz
If that really is a good summary of the counterargument, then it shows how weak it is, and why it didn't carry the day.
I did find Jackson's perspective to be pretty naive, misunderstanding the role of a court in the legal system, and in the country, overestimating the power it might have to dictate things to the whole society.
But let-them-eat-cake really underscored it: this isn't about eating cake, that's not the question, this is about ending the taking of cake from people.
After all, and this might be news to Jackson, SCOTUS can only rule in the face of actual harm. It has no authority to distribute cake.
@lauren
Keep in mind how naive it sounds to say things like Meta's aim is to destroy fediverse.
Again, let's see your argument. These little jabs are just making it sound like you're reflexively repeating something you heard that doesn't really have much basis.
@privacat @ploum @dangillmor
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:
