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
volkris
boosted
[Josh Blackman] The KBJ Delay in Callais https://reason.com/volokh/2026/05/05/the-kbj-delay-in-callais/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon
If that was the case then the probably wouldn't have ruled against racial manipulation of the vote.
But we can all see for ourselves that the claim was accurate. It's right there in black and white, and even the new filing proves it to be accurate.
The appellants had not expressed an intent. They had requested an opportunity, itself pretty bizarre. I'm sorry if those appellants in a major case messed up the process, but that's why this should be taken seriously.
At best the NAACP screwed up here. Hold them accountable for botching the process. But more realistically, this was a political stunt. They knew they were losing and wanted to grab headlines.
You're right that the Supreme Court does not fix legislative branch issues. Beyond that, I'm afraid you've fallen for "extremist, activist" narratives that are debunked by the record of the US judicial system, if not basic civics itself.
No, it is complete nonsense to say SCOTUS dealt a blow to the VRA, and any outfit saying such a thing is either lying or amazingly ignorant as to what the ruling, and the act, actually said.
Read the opinion. It lays out that it was reinforcing the VRA, supporting it on its terms, not dealing a blow to it.
This ruling came about BECAUSE of the VRA, as court after court observed.
The SCOTUS ruling said the opposite. It flatly rejected voting policy targeting race, such as Jim Crow laws.
The ruling added an additional lock to the Jim Crow cage.
The problem is, the SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to make the final decision. That's up to the executive branch following legislative branch statute.
This is something legislators had years to address, but they failed. We need to stop reelecting the legislators that keep dropping the ball.
We can't look to the courts to fix legislative branch issues.
One issue with that perspective is that the SCOTUS ruling flat out allows Democrats to put their fingers on the scales for their own electoral favor.
The Court's ruling is that you can't tilt the scales based on race, but Democrats are still able to tilt it for party reasons.
To be clear, this chaos existed before the SCOTUS ruling as two lower courts handed down contradictory rulings. This chaos had been going on for years.
SCOTUS really had to rule, and rule quickly, to sort out which court was right.
To be clear, the reason it applies to states where abortion is legal is because this was a matter of federal regulations from the Biden administration.
It's nationwide because it's a matter of federal drug regulation.
@klausfiend in the US system it's not as simple as asking and answering once.
There are different branches answering what they SHOULD do vs what they COULD do, and that plays out in different levels of government, and over different cases, and in different contexts.
@TheConversationUS
Well, I wouldn't say pressure on the SCOTUS, especially with this timing, but more of a way to pressure congresspeople and parties to mark their positions.
It's not inconsistency. They're different cases with different postures, and you're really not taking that context into account.
The conclusions that you're drawing here are really weak, seeking monsters in the apples vs oranges comparisons being put forward.
volkris
boosted
#ClayAndBuck, explicitly: Spirit Airlines went out of business because of something Elizabeth Warren said and absolutely not because their fuel prices shot up due to Trump's war. And also, let's sort all of us into airline teams based on which one each of us flies. #USPolitics
CLOSE!
Yes, exactly, Congress oversees the Supreme Court. But it's not that it's been extraordinarily unhelpful. The opposite: it's done its job of representing the people.
it just happens that the people don't view the Court as so shameful, by and large.
This IS how democracy works. it would be antidemocratic for Congress to dismantle the Court when the people aren't clammoring for that.
For better or worse we're satisfied with this.
Not Virginia?
If you look at the SCOTUS voting record there are an awful lot of opinions that could be described as bipartisan, if we buy the kind of circular claim that the court has been so partisan.
This bipartisanship is often attributed to Roberts' influence, so the data shows the exact opposite of what you're saying.
The SCOTUS ruling goes through the history of the VRA debunking claims made in this article.
For example, it goes through revisions in the law that specifically precluded the inclusion of a results test. That was emphatically not part of the VRA.
Kagan's senationalism was not just wrong, but it was unhelpful, promoting narratives like this that just don't hold water when examined.
If the VRA needs reform, great! We have a legislative process to get there. But we won't reform the VRA by grousing about it not saying something it never said anyway.
Just because the people we elect to Congress don't view the Court as having done such wrongs doesn't mean the Court isn't accountable.
It simply means there isn't that widespread feeling that the Court has done wrong.
@MugsysRapSheet that doesn't actually matter.
Maybe it SHOULD matter, but that's not how our elected representatives have set up the system.
The concern is a canard? Of course it is! The US legal system often relies on such fictions, especially when an issue overlaps with politics. The canard is part of the process.
ALL that matters here is that the federal agency apparently acted without legal authority.
I'd love for the law to be different, and for all politicians to be honest, and for the feds to get out of this field completely. But the courts work with the law as is, not how I personally would like it to be.
What do you mean pretty much the entire political and media class look the other way? I hear them talking about it constantly, day in and day out, far from looking the other way.
Maybe you just need a broader perspective to experience what seems so commonplace?
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:
