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
@edwardchampion@universeodon.com
But the judicial branch is by definition and constitution anti-democratic. The branch is a check on the democratic branch, the legislature.
If we want to preserve democracy then we need to focus on improving the democratic branch. We need to stop reelecting jerks to Congress. Which we do, over and over, for some reason.
You can't fix democracy by focusing on and expanding an anti-democratic branch.
That's like trying to turn a screw by getting bigger and bigger hammers. No, just get the right screwdriver.
Oh no, not at all. I'm not saying they're good or bad, nor can the Supreme Court say they're good or bad.
They are what they are, and they can be changed depending on whom we decide to elect to Congress.
SCOTUS said the laws of the country, as determined by the democratic process, don't allow for such racial discrimination.
Is that bad? Is that good? Well, the people we elect to Congress say it's the way to go, so that's what the Court was left with.
We should elect better people if we want the laws changed.
@Geh4Peh@woof.group
Yes, but that's the sort of thing that the legislative branch, not the judicial branch, is supposed to be determining.
So far we keep electing and reelecting representatives to Congress who aren't interested in taking those actions. We should probably reconsider and stop reelecting such people if we want change.
It's not for the Court to say what we need. It's for the Court to respect what the democratic process decides we need, and we all need to engage with the democratic process to make it happen.
Yes, and elect lawmakers who will actually do something about it!
For way too long we have elected and then reelected representatives to Congress who have not thought issues like donor and legacy admissions were worth addressing.
And at this moment we need to be very clear that those lawmakers should not be allowed to escape accountability by pointing fingers at the Court.
No, they are lawmakers, it is their responsibility to promote new laws that address these issues. Otherwise they are not doing their job. And we need to hold them accountable for that.
I mean the two aren't mutually exclusive.
We need better laws. We keep reelecting bad lawmakers. We should knock that off, kick out lawmakers making bad law, and put better people in Congress.
The Supreme Court rests its decisions on the laws made by the awful lawmakers that we keep reelecting for some reason.
Funny thing is how the last paragraph dovetails with the Court's reasoning.
Ah, but that's not part of the game.
Innocence of perjury is not a requirement for being on the Court.
Maybe it should be, but at this point, it's not.
Well, the people we keep electing are apparently cool with that, so, yep.
We need to stop electing and reelecting these jerks. So long as we vote them back into office, I guess we're satisfied with it.
I think there's a difference in that the entire executive authority of government is explicitly organized around this one, electable, accountable, and impeachable figure.
What is the alternative that's so much better that it would replace the presidential system?
King was replaced by parliament because parliament was better than king. What's the better alternative to president?
Well there IS a magic bullet of sorts: if we don't like a law, we should pass a better law!
If we don't like how Title VI of the Civil Rights Act interacts with college admission, then let's fire the silver bullet of reforming it to sanction affirmative action.
This is on us. We elect the jerks who haven't fixed these laws in all this time.
Let's elect better lawmakers.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act isn't exactly known for having been driven forward by movement conservatives trying to enshrine white rule.
But I suppose if it was, well, even more reason to reform it.
Which justice was not appointed with the consent of the Senate?
The reason that sort of line is so at odds with reality is that the Court doesn't have the authority to entrench anything. It can only call out action that's at odds with democratically developed law.
The Supreme Court can't tell universities how to admit students. It can point out when their means of admission run afoul of law, but it can't dictate to them the way to act.
The quote here misrepresents the actual functioning of the Court in the US system of government, and that's its fatal flaw.
US politics
I think it's key that so many of these issues have been talkingpoints for years, so we've had plenty of warning that we needed to revisit and reform laws that were on shaky ground, but we didn't elect legislators who'd do it.
We were warned for generations. We didn't heed the warnings. So here we go.
It's a statement of fact...
There's no argument here. The fact is, the question before the court was about this legislation.
I'm not doing any analysis here or making any statements of value. This is flat out the question presented to the Court, and I believe I linked to it above.
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.
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:
