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
You don't understand the Citizens United decision.
In that decision the Supreme Court absolutely and explicitly did NOT give constitutional power to corporations. In his opinion Kennedy made that clear.
There has been so much misinformation about that ruling, but yeah, the Court ruled the opposite.
@SETSystems@defcon.social @MarcAbrahams
@bigheadtales and they are right to ignore the whole "militia thing" based on how the amendment was written.
If you want to change it, go ahead! That's how the process is supposed to work.
Until the amendment is changed, though, the "amendment thing" is phrased specifically so as to be ignored.
Honestly, when you hear her in oral argument it's not clear that Sotomayor knows what's going on in the world at all. She keeps asking questions in oral argument that completely miss the question before them.
She's pretty dumb. I wouldn't take any article citing her talking about the sky falling as particularly worthwhile.
@BohemianPeasant the US legal system has rules that are open to the public, that aren't confined to any one court, not even the Supreme Court.
They aren't opaque. They're out there in the open for us all to watch, or at least, for those nerdy enough to care about this stuff to watch :)
So really, it's like those of us who watch CSPAN and see the processes of Congress vs those who don't.
The rules of, say, evidenciary proceedings in the federal courts are written down for all to see, for anyone who wants to read them. That's how we know.
It's just that, looking at the actual rules of the US system makes it harder for reporters and special interest groups to get clicks if they actually consider them.
@JBShakerman SCOTUS didn't make bumpstocks available.
We kept electing and reelecting congresspeople who over and over failed to outlaw them
I don't know if you want to blame the voters for that, but at least we should be blaming the other branch of government for it.
@copter_chief The case is not about absolute immunity, though. Both parties agreed to that explicitly even though it was never part of the filing in the first place, just to be perfectly clear about it.
Yes, there are some media outlets misreporting this. We should stop trusting those outlets because they are promoting a lie.
@joeinwynnewood an important part of the picture is the impression that it's being forced from above and not simply adopted as reasonable based on the situation.
It's one thing to say, you do what's best for your company and your clients and your institution. It's another thing to say you must do this regardless of whether it's for the best or not.
It has a lot to do with micromanaging, particularly from a government that people have lost faith in.
@NewsDesk Well right, because they didn't falsely declare Donald Trump winner.
They engaged in a legal process, and the judge recognized that, despite sensationalist stories trying to portray this otherwise.
@Hyolobrika Yeah, it's certainly practical, work with the world we have not the one we wish we had 🙂
@jackcole sure, I would never say federal supremacy is absolute, but it is a serious consideration, one that we have fortunately not had to deal with all that much historically, but it's something that's lurking there under the surface should a major federal official be sidelined from their job by a state or local government.
For what it's worth, my preference would be that we ignore this completely, and a federal official unable to do the job due to arrest would simply be seen as unable to do their job and replaced. However, I recognize the pragmatic concern and the reason this is still a factor to be considered.
@bigheadtales The one has nothing to do with the other, though.
Even if guns were commonly stored in armories and not homes (which I'm skeptical of but nevermind) that doesn't mean the people who wrote the Constitution had a point of view that was limited to guns being relegated to armories.
The justices of the Court lay out their reasoning. We don't have to go on these conspiracy theories when they ride out the reasoning by which they came to their conclusions.
@TCatInReality there's no reason to need nine justices on a case. We have a long history of having opinions handed down with fewer, and no particular reason to need that many anyway.
Three justices or even a single justice is perfectly able to issue a ruling if need be. There's no reason that's not possible.
And the lottery system would do nothing to change whether or not the personality of judges is or is not a factor. It just means a roll of the dice to see which personalities are involved, if personalities are involved.
But again, you talk about wild swings, and I'm pointing out that the lottery could mean wild swings within a single sitting of the Court. It only would make that problem worse.
@johnonolan I agree, though I would phrase it as each interface tailoring itself for presenting the content coming to it as its users need it to.
I think that when talking about Fediverse engineering all too often the needs of users, the wants of users, doesn't get enough attention in the conversation.
Just a slight nitpick 🙂
I hear a lot of Mastodon users, for example, flat out saying they don't want long-form content, and so I would phrase it as, Mastodon uis will display or not display long form posts in response to users who don't want to see it that way.
Anyway, again, not disagreeing, just blabbering :)
@donnayoungdc Oh come on. The Supreme Court has neither the jurisdiction nor the authority to interfere in elections like that.
Folks promoting that conspiracy theory don't seem know the fundamentals of how the US government functions.
@TCatInReality It doesn't change recusal at all. Justices remain equally able to recuse themselves.
But I don't think you're considering the downsides of a plan like that, particularly that one huge function of the justice system is certainty, predictability.
It's a feature of the system that cases can be tailored to the judges, addressing the particular areas of concern to each judge, and getting a sense of how the case may play out in front of a known set of judges to avoid surprises.
It also means a more coherent judicial philosophy, especially when different sets of Judges might come to contradictory rulings.
What happens when the Supreme Court in a single term contradicts itself? How are lower courts supposed to abide by contradictory commands?
There are real benefits to having a single set of justices on the Supreme Court. The lottery idea is more trouble than it's worth, especially considering the checks on the Supreme Court's power in the US system.
@freeschool I hope so.
The ax that I grind is that so many people use this platform without realizing just how open it is to scraping, just how little privacy there is here, and just how open they are being to the whole world.
As long as people are aware of that, great! They can make the informed decision about whether they use this platform or not. But unfortunately I come across a lot of people who don't know that there really is no privacy control here at all.
So yeah, spread the word! Anything a person puts here is probably going to be scraped, even if they try to set it to private or whatever, and they need to be aware of that if they continue to use this platform.
@Hyolobrika any advancement in that field would be very welcome to me, though personally I would prefer not to get complicated by involving other technologies like DNS, even DNSSEC secured.
I have similar complaints against ActivityPub :)
I think we could go pretty natively distributed for cryptographic signing, so we don't really need the hierarchical technologies anymore, though it's understandable why established interests and people simply not wanting to rock the boat would look using what we have now as a springboard.
In fact, it's slightly off topic, but with polls showing degradation in the public trust of institutions these days, relying on things like DNS and institutions using DNS, well it might not be the best time for that anyway.
@ChrisHolladay the problem is that without due process this sort of law also threatens the guns of those women who would like to shoot their abusers.
That's what Thomas was pointing out.
@Nonilex skimming through Dobbs, Alito also seems pretty skeptical of applying British law to that question.
So it seems pretty consistent.
When interpreting American law they look to American context primarily.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
@SETSystems@defcon.social
Well, no. We ended up with corporations as people when our elected congresspeople voted to use the term as a convenience when legislating.
No fraud, just a convenient shorthand for drafting law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701
@MarcAbrahams
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:
