volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@pinsk that's simply not a reasonable way to approach the world.

No, inaction is not action. Inaction doesn't have the effect of action--it has no effect. This is just putting words in people's mouths and then criticizing them for things that they literally didn't say, positions that they absolutely didn't take.

It's pretty antisocial to normalize that kind of approach.

@froomkin

@maeve despite kind of clickbaity reports to the contrary, no, Texas isn't defying SCOTUS.

If you pull up the SCOTUS order, Texas isn't doing anything out of compliance with it.

@Lyle I mean, I guess some are?

There are a whole lot of bigger issues people are debating today, with all of the drama around the world and hard negotiations happening with regard to borders and funding in DC.

Maybe it depends on what groups a person might be listening to?

@freemo it's a tough call, especially if you might suspect the tips are shared with other employees who actually were helpful.

@MugsysRapSheet but Trump DID ask the SCOTUS to intervene and they rejected his invitation.

SCOTUS took up Bush v Gore because Bush made the case that a lower court screwed up, which needed correcting.

SCOTUS didn't take up Trump's cases because that campaign didn't make a solid case.

It had nothing to do with Biden, but about Trump's request being unpersuasive.

This shows that the Court is happy to ignore Trump's wants when they think he's blabbering nonsense.
@philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun

@lauren FWIW, today I heard a bunch of self-described MAGA folks rejecting the idea as a nutty conspiracy theory.

Heck, a few of them took it to the next level and made their own conspiracy theory that something so nutty clearly came from those trying to undermine the MAGA side.

What a time to be alive.

@jrp I'm with you, personally, but then I'd say with good UI design there's room for all of us here, for different users to tailor their experiences to their personal preferences.

@jupiter_rowland

My reasoning: character count isn't about content but about form.

And practically, while your fediverse reading program might not be able to understand a post well enough to see what the content is about, and give you a warning, it can easily detect character count and do something you'd like if the count is too large.

If you want to skip all posts above 500 characters or whatever, it would be trivial to program a client to do that. It's a UI issue.

@KeithDevlin well, what examples do you have of that happening?

Occam's Razor would have us at least consider that maybe they rule in certain directions because the argument they propose is simply the right one, that there isn't this conspiracy involved.
@DemocracyMattersALot

@MugsysRapSheet that's because Trump's recounts never made it to SCOTUS in a way that warranted its action.

In Bush v Gore the Court was involved because a lower court had demanded a recount. When it comes to Trump it was the opposite: lower courts rebuked him already, so there wasn't anything for the SCOTUS to do.
@philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun

@bigheadtales what case?

@GottaLaff

@MisterWanko

But as we can see in this article, the solution didn't work and people were left without housing.

@todayilearned

@MugsysRapSheet it's not that simple as this is a judicial process involving multiple courts going through processes of hearings and preliminary injunctions and appeals of the injunctions.

If you really want to simplify it that way, though, the answer is no. The appeal was over an injunction that actually allowed Border Patrol in.

But again, this matter is not that simple.

@GottaLaff

@MugsysRapSheet when you go directly to the ruling you'll see that's not what they ruled, regardless of the reporting.

Here's the order for you to read for yourself. It's short.

In fact, they would have had to issue a long ruling, not a short order, had they actually ruled that officers can come in an cut razor wire.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012224zr_fd9g.pdf

@GottaLaff

@MugsysRapSheet that's not what's happening in this legal proceeding.

The state isn't ignoring SCOTUS. It's that SCOTUS didn't say what so many are running around claiming it said.

@GottaLaff

@JaniceSelbie well, where in her rulings do you see magical thinking?

@swanksalot I mean, the Court issued plenty of rulings even while he was on the bench where other members disagreed with him.

Nothing really odd about it.

Yes, justices are wrong sometimes. That's why we have more than one, and why they're limited in their authority.

@cspcypher yeah, but then we introduce those chaotic humans to the mix, and it turns out society is not so amenable to being designed and well-ordered :)

I wouldn't say so much words of wisdom as words of someone who doesn't seem to have met humans yet.

@MisterWanko

That gets it exactly backwards.

From what the article says, people value apartment rental enough that they'd naturally pay more for them, and owners are willing to rent at those prices.

So the higher rates are natural, reflecting the value of housing.

The problem here is that the government solution stands in the way of people renting at those naturally higher prices, artificially constraining the housing market.

People value housing. These restrictions stand between people and what they want to rent.

@todayilearned

@accretionist@techhub.social hijacking the topic?

@Jayslacks wrote about his feeling that Biden was boring, so I chimed in that I wish that was the case, as his tenure has been pretty disruptive.

And that lack of boringness is something too few people are aware of, though it should be pretty significant to their voting decision.

And then you pivoted to Trump, in a very hijacky way, before starting up with namecalling and all this other nonsense.

I'm happy to chat on topic as I think there are important things to discuss there.