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
Wow, what a misguided comparison.
Brexit and Slaughter are fundamentally different, opposite, in dimension after dimension starting right with democratic vote vs legal ruling in support of democtatic accountability.
This makes the EU look pretty bad, as if they don't have competent civil servants or experts working in their highest levels.
It reminds me that over and over there are expressions of international surprise when a presidential transition leads to change in administrative policy.
Nobody should be surprised; that's the structure of the US government in both theory and practice.
The EU made a major deal without understanding fundamentals of how the US worked?
The Supreme Court said the opposite, if you pull up the actual ruling. It actually laid the groundwork for continuing Trump's prosecution.
The main thing it said was that a president couldn't harass a former president without cause, which is to say Trump can't go after Biden for no reason.
So often people are following news outlets that get the story backwards. it sounds more salacious that way.
Don't give Trump too much credit. Assigning his motivations to anything in particular assumes it's not just random.
I suspect a lot of these firings is explained by one of his underlines proposing it and him blindly approving.
The firing at the heart of the FTC decision might have been motivated by wanting to get that specifically before the court, not that Trump would understand the strategy.
That's not what the Supreme Court decided.
The Court didn't decide to block lawsuits against Bayer but rather that states couldn't pass laws that undermine the federal EPA.
This wasn't prioritizing corporate interests. It was prioritizing federal environmental stewardship, often AGAINST corporate interests.
ProPublica is not a reliable source, and this is yet another example. They write these misleading pieces lacking in context to pull clicks and push their agendas.
In proper context, "secretive votes with little justification" don't carry much weight as rulings, if we even want to call them that. It's the public and written justification that shapes law in the US system.
These are administrative tweaks, footnotes. But that doesn't make as compelling of a story for ProPublica.
Unfortunately we're living in an era where trust in institutions has collapsed, so we don't have the touchstones to say what's true and what's not.
You could watch as over a year the MAGA crowd bought into the claim that birthright citizenship was not actually in the Constitution, based in part on the words of "experts" who were all too happy to tell them what they wanted to year, confirming their biases.
This is a major theme of the post-COVID era so far.
@sjb right, because it was never about sides getting what they wanted in the first place.
Far too often--and this is promoted by clickbait stories--the actual legal arguments are substituted with dramatic tales about THEM getting what they want. Well, THEY don't think they got what they want, kind of debunking those theories.
We all got legal explanations for the Court's opinions, really.
This misses the argument, though.
It wasn't about whether the president can change the Constitution but about what the Constitution said.
Opponents of birthright citizenship argued that due to the qualifier "subject to the jurisdiction" the Constitution never said it applied to certain classes.
It wasn't that the president was editing with a Sharpie but that due to the words on the page it was misapplied.
No, the Supreme Court didn't rule in favor of mail in voting. It ruled to support states' constitutional authority to manage their elections as they see fit.
Huge difference, particularly with regard to how the SAVE act would dovetail with the Court's decision.
How in the world do you make the jump from ProPublica charges surrounding administrative orders to AI?
What, specifically, are you talking about? Where in what the Court wrote do you see politics driving their rulings over law?
@wendythedruid the Court didn't come for her track season, though.
That's a misframing of the issue and resolution before the Court.
ProPublica is not a reliable source. Often enough they seem to be prioritizing sensationalism and advocacy ahead of accuracy in their reporting.
Speaking of, what is MY advocacy?
If you're focusing on the shadow docket then you're missing the major work of the Court. Docket orders are administrative, which is why it don't divert resources explaining reasoning through them.
It does give outfits like ProPublica fodder for misleading the public about how all of this works, though.
#SeanHannity ― The birthright citizenship loss is just the latest in case after case where the Supreme Court has ruled against Trump and conservati...
SCOTUS didn't decide to bar trans girls from sports they belong in.
That's the opposite of what's in the ruling.
The SCOTUS has no such authority and didn't presume to have it.
It's often papered over that such restrictions hit everyday folks while leaving the rich and powerful perfectly able to wield their influence through other means.
Striking down these limits removes a finger that exacerbated the unlevel playingfield.
It allows you and me to better put our resources toward supporting candidates of our choice.
The problem is that much of the public have leaned heavily into patterns of reasoning heavily laced by confirmation bias.
They embrace and promote any proposal that gets them to their preconceived conclusion, often calling it common sense, with little interest in things like coherence or technicality.
With substantial calls in the public to deny the 14th based on the outcomes they want to see, and toady experts indulging the calls, the debate was joined.
Really, this is a trend that was heavily accelerated by COVID responses. We're still having waves from it.
Well, read the dissents :)
The dissents lay out their evocation of originalist guide to getting to their conclusions.
Heck, the dissents answer your question about how they got to their conclusions, but farther, without reading them you don't even know what they concluded!
Funny that a court very much engaged in a political program to expand executive power has over and over rejected invitations to expand executive power.
The rulings don't line up with your theory.
Sometimes executive power win, sometimes they lose. That they're not consistent with the expansion of executive power proposal shows that no, they decide based on other things, as indicated in the opinions themselves.
You're reducing their work to a simple goal that just doesn't hold up to the record.
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:
