volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@PeterSoukup I don't think those beliefs are as genuine as you make it sound.

When, in the course of running on women's rights and protection of democracy, the politician is citing falsehoods that they HAVE to know are false--from misstating laws through misstating history that they themselves were there to see--you can see that there's a level of dishonesty there as well.

I don't actually think Trump believes much of anything. He just stands in front of the crow and vomits out whatever is getting more applause moment by moment.

But I don't know if its better or worse to know nothing or to know but still mislead.

@si_irini I think we really do have to treat them like children.

When a child does something bad and stupid, maybe don't get angry, just do your best to teach them why what they did was wrong while sending them to time out when appropriate.

Sometimes anger is unavoidable, of course, but maybe framing it that way would be easier on your blood pressure :)

@ERBeckman the thing to keep in mind is that a substantial number of backers of this are effectively trolling you, and should be treated as such:

You ignore them other than filing the appropriate lawsuits to have a court slap it down.

Don't despair. Shake your head and move on.

Otherwise, you give them what they want and end up encouraging them.

@nathans you were on to something until the end with the example:

No, Trump didn't ignore dozens of court rulings saying he'd lost the election, since that's not how the courts work, nor is it how presidential elections work.

On top of that, he didn't take any substantial actions wrt to the election that were authoritarian.

Both Trump and Biden are guilty of impeachable authoritarian actions, working outside of the law. The thesis is well-served by a huge number of examples.

It's just, that's not one.

@Codeschubse save it by destroying it, huh?

@PeterSoukup perhaps Dems are doing the same, though, following some PR strategist advice to get a few more votes.

Two groups who aren't leaders but rather loudmouths following the way they think the wind is blowing in the broader public.

Well, at least that highlights that they're following us, if only us could get our stuff together.

@si_irini so often we see cases of activists being so out of touch, or so nearsighted, that they don't see that their tactics harm their own causes.

Those falling into that trap are foolish children.

So why do they do that? Because they're foolish children who don't understand the harm they're doing, including to themselves.

@freeschool those notices will do nothing to stop a company from vacuuming up your postings to help build their marketing profiles of you or train AI or whatever.

They will be more content to put in their databases, though.

@claralistensprechen3rd

You're comparing apples and oranges while talking about machine parts.

I'm pointing out that this is a unique case and time doesn't matter in the context of the court, and yet you're continuing to talk about time, which doesn't matter, in comparison against other cases, which are uncomparible.

AND the claim doesn't make sense in the first place. A delay gets the supposed conspiracy nothing at this point, given the timing of lower courts.

@bespacific

@Guinnessy but that's why you don't go to the SCOTUS in the first place if you need speed. Go to the two other branches.

If the house needs to be built in a specific timeframe, don't hire a baker since he's not even the right one to build a house in the first place!

I'm also reminded of people upset that the Court didn't talk about Trump enough when hearing this case. Except... the Supreme Court's role sitting as a court of appeals here has pretty much nothing to do with Trump. Those people who were upset don't understand the Court's role in the US government.

It's just not what the Court is for, and people are seeing malice due to their misunderstandings of this stuff.

@dougiec3 So you look for historical tradition that's in the context of whatever law is on the table.

Since there is no question of law about whether women have a right to vote, one wouldn't go looking to the tradition of whether women have a right to vote.

@bespacific you're comparing apples and oranges, though. This case was particularly nuanced as they sought to answer that rather deep question of federal construction.

It's pretty rare that such a case even gets to the Court, and since judicial independence means they can take their time and get it right, there's nothing strange about it taking them a while to resolve their stance.

Folks trying to make something of timing here don't understand that time doesn't matter to the Court by its nature.

If you wanted something done fast, there were two other branches better situated to respond to situations today.

@dcdeejay that's not what happened here, though.

Both sides in the dispute were engaging in originalist analysis. They simply weighed different factors differently in light of an incomplete picture.

Barrett wanted to go farther and make a broader ruling, while the ruling that carried the day was narrower given the case before them.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-704_4246.pdf

@Guinnessy you're just looking for meaning in a metric that has no meaning in their context, though.

It doesn't matter what the meaningless issue of timing was previously compared to this meaningless case of timing, timing just doesn't enter into it.

It's like complaining that this wrench is really slow a driving a nail, because you had a different wrench that was faster at driving a nail, when in reality wrenches aren't the right tool to drive nails in the first place, so it's not relevant.

As for bizarre decisions, I thought the bump stock decision was very straightforward...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf

@levisan Yeah I'm reminded of the drinks where everybody seems to be very open about saying it's flavored that way to hide the taste of alcohol, at which point, people with that perspective are just trying to get drunk without having to taste it 🙂

I think a lot of people wouldn't even deny it.

@tuban_muzuru One funny part of the situation is that his antics step on the toes of other representatives so that his own voters might be laughing about the joke they're playing on everyone else, but everyone else who is seeing their own representatives interfered with won't be quite so amused by him.

To put it in a really cynical way, maybe half the country is pissed off because this guy is being a troll and standing in the way of their own representatives engaging in their own trolling! That is, if we assume the worst, that all of these elected people are trolls.

@Savvyhomestead

@evan I mentioned it's probably technically infeasible, but philosophically, I'd be against that too.

The reply that someone else made is sort of their work, their art. For you to be able to delete their work is something of an affront to the ideas that we make our own content around here.

Yes, their content referred to yours. No, that doesn't make their content yours.

@Savvyhomestead I think you might underappreciate how many Republicans can't stand the guy.

@levisan so really, factoring that out, you don't get the point of alcohol :)

Which is fair!