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
@marianisoehartono@ohai.social
Well the thing about #MMT is that in theory it absolutely would work. The US could spend money that way and avoid inflation by removing it from the system through the right levels of taxation. That math works out.
The problem is that in practice it is a non-starter. We can see flat out today that the people we elect aren't willing to set appropriate levels of taxation to cover normal government expenditures, much less the level needed to centrally manage the currency.
It's a fine idea on paper, with no possibility of being implemented in the real world.
Nope. SCOTUS applies standard rules of federal courts, as it did here. And it explained that at length in the ruling, as did the lower courts that also explained at length how this legal process works.
But they have already tightened ethics rules. That's a major part of this story.
Thomas did not report those things because the previous rules didn't require such reporting. The rules have since changed, and now they do.
It's unfortunate that so many media outlets are missing that key part of this story.
If correct legal decisions are right-wing political ends, well that mainly says something about the left
-wing being out to lunch.
Respect for the democratic process and application of the democratically passed statutes should not be a left right issue.
There are structural changes required: we really need to stop reelecting the jerks who decline to fix our laws. But we do, so we get the laws that we ask for.
Alternet seems to be misrepresenting how the US court system works with this article.
Firstly, remember that it wasn't just a Supreme Court ruling. Court after court considered this case and they all considered it to be legit. This wasn't something the SCOTUS just made up.
But to explain it, the petitioner asked for a ruling about a law that was going to be applied at some point. It doesn't matter that the law had not yet been applied, or that nobody had made the request, as per the rules about the court system, it is sufficient that the application of law was going to happen at some point.
So these articles think they have uncovered something when really, yeah, that's just how the federal courts work. There's no gotcha here.
Well what would you do about unscheduled vacancies?
If there were two unexpected vacancies during a president's term, would that be an addition to the two that were scheduled, therefore giving that president room to appoint four of the nine?
In short, my impression is that a major difference is how ActivityPub focuses on instances while Bluesky focuses on users.
It's hard to think about them interoperating when they have such different philosophies.
Constitutional amendments are absolutely part of the system of US law. They are fundamental to US law. And the legal process is the main way of creating or reforming them.
SCOTUS is not invalidating laws. That's not how the US legal system works. It does not have the authority to invalidate a law. Instead, the courts can point out when some action runs afoul of law, that is the major job of a court under the US system.
The standing of 303 Creative was spelled out in the ruling. It does no good to simply deny what we can read with our own eyes.
Folks saying government debt is not like a family's debt because governments can print money get that exactly backwards.
Yes, your family can print your own money. Maybe it won't be accepted because it's not considered particularly valuable. **Same as government printed money** if the government prints too much of it.
The lesson is the same in both cases: the value of money can vary.
303 Creative was based on the 1st Amendment, and Groff was based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
If we want to reform these laws then we need to elect better lawmakers.
Yes, I always go directly to the opinions themselves.
I find that reporting on the Supreme Court and its opinions are so often completely, factually wrong that really a person needs to go directly to the Court to see what the Court said.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
@BrynnTannehill74
The key is that so many people simply don't have the same values that you do, don't care about the land being grabbed.
They're happy to repeat the history because they get a new shiny toy out of it that they'll get bored of after giving the company a bit of profit.
You're seeing a bug that so many see as a feature.
But SCOTUS didn't outlaw race as an admission criterion. The legislators that we elected did that.
It's crucial to make this point because we can change things if we want. We need to stop electing and reelecting the legislators who wrote these laws if we want the laws to change.
We should not let those legislators point fingers at the Supreme Court for the laws they themselves are responsible for. We can change things as long as we hold them accountable.
Wow, this article really misunderstands the ruling. It's going way sensational, I guess to get clicks, but no, the Supreme Court rulings don't at all go where this article goes.
It's funny because the article even acknowledges that other people point out the narrowness of the ruling. It just says nuh and runs right past that point to paint its dystopian picture.
New Republic is not a reliable outfit, and this article is a good reason that it is not reputable. This article is fear-mongering not based in reality.
It's not the SCOTUS decision that brought it, though. It's the law that the decisions were recognizing.
We keep electing and reelecting representatives who promote these laws in the US. If we want change then we need to stop reelecting those people.
It's vital to point this out because otherwise we let representatives escape accountability as they point fingers at the other branch of government instead of doing the work to reform our laws, instead of doing their jobs.
If we want different laws we need to stop electing the same lawmakers.
Do keep in mind that as ActivityPub is designed, any content you post here is broadcast in such a way that any greedy corporatist gets it dropped into their lap.
It's really striking to me how stories and posts like this are completely missing in any logical analysis of the rulings.
They attack people personally, and often they even promote conspiracy theories, but with that dramatic and personal attack, they don't actually consider that maybe court opinions are simply correct.
That's a nice conspiracy theory you've got there.
Well there are two prongs that go against that.
On one hand, if the justices deliver ridiculous conclusions lower courts will ignore them because they are logically incoherent. The lower courts can only implement logical precedents.
And secondly, If members of the Supreme Court issue rulings that are opposed to the wishes of the legislative branch than the legislative branch will impeach them, which they have not, so apparently the rollings are solid.
@Mjo321@mstdn.social
I am absolutely positive that you will continue to believe in these conspiracy theories about The Federalist Society.
I am personally absolutely positive that it is futile to try to talk about what is actually happening in the world, to actually talk about how these conspiracy theories are nonsense.
So yeah, I will have a nice life, and you have a nice life too. As best as you can. Well you believe this nonsense about the vast right wing conspiracies that circle around the echo chambers that it sounds like you are involved in.
You do you.
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:
