volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@ShaunBurch it doesn't sound like this is discriminating based on someone's language.

Rather, this is based on the person receiving additional value, at a cost to the supplier, regardless of what languages they may or may not be able to speak.

If it costs more to supply the service the choices are to pass that cost over to everyone or to charge extra to the one who receives extra value from the additional service.

It has nothing to do with the someone's language since the other factors are the same regardless.

@benbloodworth

@bespacific that's a misrepresentation of what Bush v Gore actually said, though.

If you read the ruling, BvG was mainly about kicking down a lower court that had interfered in the democratic process. After all, SCOTUS was an appellate court in that case, as it normally is.

As a court of appeals, SCOTUS wasn't responding directly to the fight between Bush v Gore but was rather responding to the errand rulings of courts below.

This sort of thing is so critical to understanding the US legal system, but sadly, that understanding is so missing in reporting about current events.

@rivetgeek ... .when I say firstly I'm not comparing them, and then secondly, no really I'm not comparing them, I still have no idea why you're still talking about not comparing them.

@jack

@theothersimo no, Steve didn't kick himself out.

@ShaunBurch it depends on the circumstances, what the nature of the discrimination is, but very often--maybe even overwhelmingly often--it is absolutely ethical to be discriminatory.

Let the ambulance go first, discriminating in favor of medical care.

Let the starving person get first shot at the food aid, discriminating against the folks who are already fed.

And on and on.

Discrimination is only a tool, a way of treating different people differently, which is SO OFTEN entirely ethical and appropriate, even if in other cases it's not.

All too often people throw out the tool instead of looking at how it's being used.

@benbloodworth

@theothersimo and you don't think you hurt someone you kick out of the book club?

@TopKnot the thing is, the administration's application to the SCOTUS is actually fairly misleading. You can see how it changes the way it describes the legal status throughout the application.

In reality, there is no request for unlimited immunity. That's a dishonest part of the filing.

Instead, in short, Trump's team refers to the well-established notion that a person execution the legal actions of the office--and ONLY the legal actions of the office--can't be held personally accountable for those.

That's a limited view of immunity. But there's so much misreporting about what the filing actually says, so a lot of people are misinformed about it.

@ShaunBurch

It is absolutely discriminatory, but we generally accept discriminatory action throughout societies.

You go to a restaurant and pay more for a steak than for a side of fries. The discriminates based on what you order, but we say that's ok.

Same here. Why WOULD we expect everyone to pay the same price when one level of service is more costly AND more valuable than another?

The Spanish speaker gets a more valuable service as the establishment gives personalized service. It's reasonable to charge the one getting the more valuable service for the cost of the service.

Yes, that's discrimination. No, it's not unreasonable.

@benbloodworth

@SocialistStan@mymastadon.link your screenname doesn't scream anarchist :)

But anyway, my personal opinions probably fall closer to yours, but so many don't get what's going on here.

I don't think they're so much infighting as working on different parts of the whole dumb puzzle that our elected officials have set up, trying to reconcile different parts of it.

Mass might doing one thing with prosecutorial discretion that might or might not be in conflict with their democratically elected legislators, but here SCOTUS is dealing with a fight between the federal executive branch and the past US Congress that passed these laws, egged on by the state of Texas and...

Well, you know it's all a huge mess, and anarchy might be better :)

But at the least I think we need to call out what's actually going on.

For now we're stuck with this government. We need to stop reelecting the idiots that put us in the situation, and we need to tell them not to blame the court for their own garbage.

@theothersimo but what IS it?

Not in comparison to something else; what IS tolerance to you?

@flexghost yup.

That's why so many of us were frustrated with all of the celebration behind the way the court case worked out: it wasn't going to end up the way so many expected.

This was always going to be the outcome of the way they pursued him. And the folks who lead the charge that went nowhere won't be held accountable for their failures, even as they enjoyed the spotlight way back when.

The general public will keep falling for these stunts, sadly, as there's all too little talk about how the US governmental systems actually function, and what levers are and aren't effective for accomplishing our goals.

@AnneTheWriter1 Mastodon is not AdFree.

Advertisers are free to broadcast ads into the system to show up into your feed.

That the algorithm (yes, there is an algorithm) may be purely chronological means there's even less to stop them from putting ads in your face.

@DoomsdaysCW these people don't seem to know what conflicts of interest are.

@Hunter no, that's wrong on all counts.

Firstly, The Texas Supreme Court said over and over in their ruling that they were **refusing** to play doctor, which was the entire point of their ruling, that the decision was in the hands of doctors, not the courts.

SCOTUS is considering a question of law, not medicine, to determine whether the executive branch broke the law, which has nothing to do with playing doctor.

Neither has anything to do with safety. Both have to do with courts *staying out of* playing doctor or other roles that they lack expertise in.

@bigzaphod what's weird about it?

Why would you expect such a link?

@SocialistStan@mymastadon.link it's not ignoring the blowhards at SCOTUS since they're not the ones involved.

It's ignoring the laws passed by our elected representatives plus the bungling of the elected presidential administration.

It took two branches of government to screw this one up, and both are, sadly, going to escape accountability as the courts are cited as scapegoat.

@benbloodworth Why not?

If it costs them extra to provide, but it gives some users additional value, it seems plenty reasonable to charge extra to the ones that derive that additional value for the additional cost to provide it.

@aeinstein@infosec.exchange it seemed to work from here. No error. @J12t@social.coop