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
Well right, military colleges weren't part of the case.
Someone can feel free to bring a case involving them, but SCOTUS can't really speak to cases that weren't brought before the court.
That's a fundamental part of how the Supreme Court was set up, to keep it from becoming another legislature, but one not elected by voters.
Claims that those were against the law of the land have been pretty definitively debunked, though.
I know, it made for good headlines, but it's just not reality.
Great sleuthing!
But... do you have any actual responses other than misframing me personally as a righwinger?
Any actual arguments to present?
I mean, surely you wouldn't be ceding the rational high ground to rightwingers, yeah?
I sure hope they're not the best we can do as a society.
So you don't know yourself?
Well jokes aside, I am asking you personally, because you leveled the accusation. I don't want to go ask one of them, I am curious what you think.
I read what they think. I wonder what you think.
I think it's been confirmed that RBG was facing heavy pressure to retire, but she chose to hang on for strategic reasons, for personal reasons.
I really do like to remind people that the current makeup of the court was heavily influenced by RBG'a decision to be strategic, by her own choices.
It rightfully tarnishes her story.
Wow, did you read the opinion in full? It went through great lengths to show that this was not settled law.
And illegitimate justices? Which justices specifically do you think were not appointed by a president without consent of the Senate?
What law do you think they aren't obeying?
Well, what is your reasoning to say that the current makeup of the court will destroy democracy?
So far it seems to be supporting democracy, raising up democratic branches of government in the face of the other branches that are trying to take more power for themselves.
@debrawexler@mastodon.social
A mediocre number beating low expectations is not exactly the barn burner the president might be hoping for.
That people were pretty pessimistic is a problem in itself. Managing to be a little better than the pessimistic people isn't exactly something to write home about.
Same as ever.
Media outfits and social media groups with axes to grind or going to keep on grinding those axes, keep on putting out sensationalized stories with only vague connection to the fact, and it really doesn't matter what the Court does, those outfits are just going to keep on keeping on.
That's the thing about this situation: it's a bit liberating to know that there is nothing they can do to address those people. So the Court might as well just not consider their perspectives.
I don't think that is part of the process that was outlined in the complaints against the universities.
So that's probably not impacted by this ruling.
I would read that the other way around.
Because he benefited from it he's in an even better position to have an informed opinion about it.
Not that it has anything to do with the laws that they were respecting with this decision, that have nothing to do with their own experiences.
There was no service academy involved in this case.
They didn't exclude service academies. Service academies weren't involved in the first place.
Doesn't that mean this court whittles away at white women?
If there comes a law and then a compelling controversy surrounding that law, then yes.
It's vital to emphasize here that this case was based on laws passed by Congress. The reason that's so important is because it emphasizes that we can address these problems by electing better lawmakers.
But we CAN'T address these issues if we're too busy yelling at the court to get around to electing people who will pass needed laws.
@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.
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:
