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
And I'm sure lawyers told him he couldn't engage in fraud and other stuff that got him convicted in court.
And advisors told him to STFU every time his mouth undermined some "deal" he was pushing for.
The boomer doesn't listen, and that's part of why he loses so often.
Also, that illustrates that the Court isn't his pet, and lots of folks on the conservative side think it's stacked against them.
That summary of the ruling is wrong.
It's not that the manufacturer did or did not need to warn consumers but that federal law BARRED it from altering its label.
It would have been illegal, under federal law, for the company to make that warning.
Maybe the law needs to be changed, but for now that's what the law is, and the Supreme Court merely said states can't overrule federal law.
Democracy Now is not a reliable source. They wear their biases on their sleeves, and this summary is very misleading.
The Supreme Court ruling wasn't about restricting lawsuits, and it wasn't "because the federal Environmental Protection Agency found no cancer risk".
What it found was that since EPA required a certain label, state law couldn't compel violation of federal law by changing that label.
Pretty big difference!
A lot of this comes from people misunderstanding the structure and processes of the US system of government, so when it doesn't work the way they think it should they think something's amiss.
The headline falls into that trap.
There is aren't "meaningless rights" as the clickbait headline crows. There are legal procedures just as there have always been, and there are things people think are rights that simply aren't.
The SCOTUS is merely pointing that out, same as always.
The rest is up to Congress and the folks we elect. In the end, they're the ones setting up these rules that SCOTUS is following.
No, the piece gets it EXACTLY backwards. It's BECAUSE of what Congress wrote that the rulings came down that way.
The rulings where emphatically saying that the other branches could not ignore Congress.
The piece seems to admit that "technically" Congress wrote this law. Well, yeah. It Congress's technicalities aren't to be ignored.
This perl clutching is antisocial. The SCOTUS says Congress can't be ignored, and so we need to elect better congresspeople who fix the laws that the SCOTUS is deferring to.
Congress wrote these laws, not the Supreme Court, which is insisting on democracy, even if democracy keeps giving us crappy lawmakers.
The headline is very misleading.
The ruling would emphatically reject a right to carry guns into stores. Under the ruling the owner of the store can absolutely bar guns. There is no right to carry on someone else's property.
So much for the LA Times.
It's really that journalism in the US needs to get its shit together. It's with solid cause that folks have lost trust in the institution.
::shrug:: This is effectively a political document created as a political campaign. Nothing more. Basically, it was a bunch of priests trotted out in front of the cameras to appeal to the voters that those priests appeal to.
But it might as well be used for the positive: the priests were against religious discrimination? Fantastic! Use their words when protecting religious minority viewpoints.
Ignore this political stunt or use it in pro-social ways.
Those descriptions don't match the actual rulings released by the Court, often being the exact opposite of what the Court actually said.
Go to the primary sources. Someone is misleading you.
Or just read the ruling.
A state law was inconsistent with federal law, so the state law was blocked since states can't override the feds.
No need to reach for conspiracies.
That description is not really accurate.
It's more that the Supreme Court shut down an effort to use state law to override federal law.
The ruling had nothing directly to do with cancer. The feds required a certain label, and the state law was being used to force a change that was illegal under federal law.
That's not AT ALL what the SCOTUS ruled.
The Court ruled that state laws can't override federal law. Since federal law was clear about the EPA having jurisdiction over labeling, the state can't provide lawsuits against the regulation.
Yes, under this ruling Monsanto can be punished for hiding cancer risks. This headline completely misunderstands the ruling.
It's not so much that they expanded Trump's power as they recognized the limits to admission programs that Congress wrote into law.
Sure, we can change the law. To do that we need to elect better lawmakers.
This case wasn't so much about Roundup and cancer but about states trying to override federal law.
The federal EPA required a certain label. The state of Missouri provided lawsuits over not using a label different from what was required.
The Supreme Court said no, states can't override the federal government like that.
Notice that the case had nothing directly to do with cancer or Roundup.
This case wasn't so much about Roundup and cancer but about states trying to override federal law.
The federal EPA required a certain label. The state of Missouri provided lawsuits over not using a label different from what was required.
The Supreme Court said no, states can't override the federal government like that.
Notice that the case had nothing directly to do with cancer or Roundup.
The Supreme Court's decisions support you in that. You don't even have to cite religion.
The Court merely said that the state can't impose on your use of your own property. Invite guns or ban them, it's up to you, not the state.
The Supreme Court's decisions support you in that. You don't even have to cite religion.
The Court merely said that the state can't impose on your use of your own property. Invite guns or ban them, it's up to you, not the state.
The Supreme Court is bound by law. Its legal role in the US system as an appellate court is to judge lower courts to ensure that proper procedures were followed.
It was designed with limited authority. It was not given so much power.
It's for the people we elect to Congress to care about whether people die. Our democratic process through Congress dictates the direction of the country.
The Supreme Court only has a role of following that. We don't grant them the power to override even if we REALLY REALLY want them to.
We need to stop reelecting the same jerks that keep failing us, and we definitely need to stop letting them escape accountability by blaming the courts for their own failures.
@joeinwynnewood what in the world are you talking about?
The majority cited law!
Yes, we need to change the laws. The laws have been problematic for a long time. But that's a task for lawmakers we elect to Congress.
Lawless support for the Trump regime? The Court has used laws to rule AGAINST the regime!
@elsantonegro, no, the decision would not be moot.
Here SCOTUS found that federal law unambiguously said states couldn't override EPA labeling regulations.
If EPA later [legally] required cancer warnings, this decision would still apply as states couldn't block the new warnings.
It's a matter for Congress.
The Supreme Court does not have the role of or even authority to protect Haitians. If such a program needs to be set up that's a matter for Congress to work on.
And we keep electing and reelecting crummy congresspeople. We need to stop reelecting these jerks, and we DEFINITELY need to stop letting them point fingers at the Court for their own failures.
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:
