volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@stevevladeck.bsky.social

It seems like you're leaning really hard into the idea that the legislation has such power over the third branch.

A statute authorizing SCOTUS to have jurisdiction? They can't act without permission of the legislature? No, that doesn't make sense for an independent judiciary impaneled by the Constitution itself.

@SenatorMoobs

Yeah, I believe in Dobbs Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he mentioned revisiting rulings based on substantial due process, and so many people--some honest, some sensationalizing--really misrepresented that sentence.

This sort of thing lays bare just how misleading those many, many stories were.

@mossyrua

We don't have to wait. We can just stop reelecting them.

WE voted in these representatives and we voted for them again even after they failed us.

@dedicto @heidilifeldman

@mossyrua

It's not about SCOTUS norms and rules. It's primarily about the folks we elect to congress since in the end they're the once with ultimate power over impeachment.

So many of the problems people see in the executive and judicial branches actually come down to us having elected ineffective or corrupt people to Congress.

We elected these people, and we keep reelecting the same ones.

@dedicto @heidilifeldman

@knowprose

First, it wasn't a supreme court ruling. They refused to get involved to make a ruling.

But to the point, copyright is for society, not for humans.

Copyright is a convenience of law created by legislators because it's seen as a social good to sort out ownership and grant privileges that encourage compositions to be released to the world.

That's why it's limited. If it was for humans it would be tied to humans, but it's not. It's simply a system based on whatever lawmakers see best.

Currently, lawmakers are requiring a human to be involved, but there's no reason they couldn't change that should it be seen as better for society.

@baldur

@rra

It seems like folks looking at their traffic sources must have an interest in knowing if requests are originating from Fediverse

(or else they wouldn't look, or wouldn't care either way)

And given that interest, they'd want their tools on their end to reflect that aggregation.

I wonder how hard it would be to work with these analysis tools to integrate that aggregation of referrers, for the common good of both their users and ours.

@Nonilex

The argument is that it's against the federal Constitution to draw district lines based on race, period.

Doesn't matter WHY one is undertaking such racial gerrymandeing, it's unconstitutional no matter how righteous the motivation might be.

Everything else is pretty consistent considering that stance.

So you've gotten a few things backwards here. The Court is ordering a halt to, not preserving, racial discrimination, and it's ordering it to stop now so that there isn't interference closer to the election.

@bkuhn

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

@BakerRL75

A lot of quotations in the article get the SCOTUS ruling wrong, sometimes completely backwards.

The emergency order wasn't anti-trans (that issue wasn't on the table at all) but rather pro-freedom of speech. They were 1st Amendment concerns at issue in the argument.

And so, the article says schools can mandate the outing of trans students, but by the same argument schools would be prevented from exactly that.

Maybe advocates do fear SCOTUS is going after the trans community. If they do, then they don't understand the law. Or maybe they're just stunting for political points.

@gottalaff.bsky.social

Well sure, because both cases seemed very likely to win on appeal and otherwise met longstanding requirements for emergency appeal.

This is just how the US legal system works, with the SCOTUS being a check on lower courts that get it wrong.

@iuculano

To be clear, this is in context of the Court finding that racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional.

The Court here found that the state court's efforts to tailor districts around race were likely in violation of that.

Yes, the topic of racial gerrymandering in the US is a mess. At the least we need to be clear about what judicial orders actually say.

@passwordsarehard4

It's because the US has a long history of presumption that any say matters, bristling at the idea that authorities get to determine what people can and can't say.

The argument before the Court here is about governmental restriction on speech. A lot of folks miss that.

@Nonilex

More to the point, the Court focused on the speech restrictions those laws are based on.

This case is emphatically not about schools outing children. This case is about government restricting and compelling speech, which is always problematic.

The problem is NOT that the state law bans automatic notification. The problem is the opposite, that the law bans any notification.

The problem with the law is not about compulsion but about restriction.

@stevevladeck.bsky.social But Alito addresses your concern in his concurrence by emphasizing the timing aspect.

He says that effectively the state courts have run out of time, so to wait around for another appeal to process would have been no appeal at all.

Alito cites precedence based on such concerns for timing, so in his mind this is settled the other direction.

@Rycaut

I often find that it's important to go directly to the ruling instead of quoting some reporter writing about the ruling, because so often they get the story completely backwards.

In any case, what you wrote there gets it backwards🙂

The way the US system works is not about shielding from lawsuits but about actively providing access to federal courts. Access is provided through law. If you want to go to federal court then you have to cite a federal law that grants you that access.

To put it another way, the default is not permitted unless denied, it is denied unless permitted.

What the Court said here is that the law granting access was explicitly not available by the language of the law. It wasn't about shielding, again that's not how this works, it was about just not providing that remedy.

If we would like that remedy to be available then Congress can provide it any time they want to.

@jeff