volkris @volkris@qoto.org
Since I guess everything is political these days, I'll identify as extremely liberal but without a home in US politics.
Mainly, there's so much misinformation out there that people in society have trouble even organizing into coherent political groupings. So I'd rather not talk about politics but instead focus on information and education. Nothing else matters until the bedrock of fact is buttressed.
But... people are always going to be wrong on the internet, as the saying goes.
So: Old man yells at clouds is a famous joke from The Simpsons, and it probably fairly describes what we do when venting on social media.
Just speaking into the void, since I figure it's an exercise in futility to conduct discussions on these platforms.
Joined Dec 2022
You laid out the process that led to this timeline.
So that’s exactly what I was interested in pointing out.
I said this is how the legal system works in the US, and you filled in some details about how it worked in this particular case, so, ::high five::
USPol; SCOTUS Today
I don’t think it was an unexpected result, though. It seems pretty in keeping with both the history and practice of the #SCOTUS.
This is the sort of thing where I really feel like people who found this surprising need to reevaluate who they listen to for news, since a lot of people were caught offguard based on being mislead about how the Court actually operates.
To put it in scientific terms, many news outlets sell dramatic theories that aren’t quite right, and these moments are the experiments that show those theories to be wrong.
This is why it’s such a good idea for people to include hashtags like USPolitics to allow people to filter out that content that they really don’t want to see.
Again, the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
Just because you’re putting a finger on the scale to ensure equity doesn’t mean you’re not putting a finger on the scale OR that putting a finger on the scale is wrong.
We should own it: We do put this finger on the scale because it is the right thing to do, and so we should keep on putting this finger on the scale so long as it’s needed.
Is it is preferencing Black voters, because preferencing Black voters is the right way to address larger issues with society.
To deny what we’re doing, instead of proudly owning and promoting it, is to leave the door open to ending the needed practice, since apparently it wasn’t needed in the first place under that argument.
Exactly.
That overlooks the simpler explanation, that they simply applied the law as it is, as they explained at length.
There’s no reason to grasp for the explanation that legitimizes bullying.
You have it backwards: those members were refusing to go down a fascist route to impose their personal opinions on others.
It’s really odd when folks describe it as fascist when power is NOT asserted, when authoritarian is avoided.
It undermines the term, equating it to simply people who share different opinions than my own.
I wasn’t talking about the juxtaposition.
For example, regardless of anything else, it’s simply not relevant that Roberts took that position in the past while working in a different role. The paper brings that up to spin a misleading tale that the guy has changed his position.
It is misleading in its own, standalone right.
If you’re reading an insult into what I said, then I’m happy to clarify that you’re misreading, and there was certainly no insult intended.
I think the Supreme Court opinion from a few years ago did a great job illustrating the ways in which gerrymandering is used for the best, as the Court declined to pick sides in the complicated back and forth.
But it IS preferencing Black voters over other voters, even if that’s the thing that should be done.
Instead of denying that they’d be receiving these benefits, why not pivot and instead emphasize that they are entitled to the benefit?
Why not first accept the reality, but also promote the idea that it’s a good thing? That makes for a more durable solution than denying that it’s happening at all.
After all, if you deny that something is happening, that makes it easier to reverse later on, because after all, it’s supposedly not happening.
What do you mean, specifically?
Well, here’s the ruling explaining it.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Yes, that’s how the US legal system works.
Each stage in a legal dispute has its own rules specifying benefit of the doubt as the arguing parties prepare their best arguments and present them to judges.
These practices have emerged from centuries of application, as societies around the world have figured out the best ways to conduct trials.
I mean, here’s the ruling so you can read the reasoning for yourself, so you don’t have to delve into such conspiracy theories.
This ruling was completely in keeping with the Court’s history. There was nothing odd here. They applied the law in a reasonable way.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
LA Times is really misleading here.
Firstly, that’s not what the ruling said. The ruling just said that the lower court properly applied SCOTUS precedents in rejecting a map.
But the Times’s story misleads that there is a contradiction here. Even if Roberts opposed a clause in a law, now it’s his job to rule on laws even if he doesn’t personally favor them.
It’s a completely different job in a completely different situation.
People being surprised at #SCOTUS rulings really need to stop and consider that their surprise indicates a lack of understanding of the Court.
When this sort of thing happens, a person should stop and reevaluate where they get their news, since that place has let them down, leading them to not see something coming.
The voting rights case handed down today should not be a surprise to anyone who really keeps up with the Court.
Heck, the core of the opinion was about remaining consistent with their past rulings.
No, because today’s ruling was against a specific backdrop, outlining specific tests that may not have applied to any other state in the country.
It wasn’t merely “make more majority-minority districts” but rather about applying existing precedent and tests for, for example, compactness that might have no application to those other cases.
The shadow docket didn’t give Republicans control over the House. Voters did that.
People underestimate how complicated the topic of gerrymandering is in the first place. It’s not something you can simply get rid of since it’s also used for good.
States also use gerrymandering to amplify the voices of marginalized groups, bringing them together into areas where they’ll be able to choose representation.
It’s because these balances are so subjective that the courts tend to stay out of it.
I mean, the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
A proportional resolution can be favorable, and it sounds like this case is arguably relatively favorable, just as the headline says.
Heck, if the requested resolution wasn’t favorable then the requester wouldn’t have standing in the first place.
No, there were even pictures in the copyright case handed down a few weeks ago.
Since I guess everything is political these days, I'll identify as extremely liberal but without a home in US politics.
Mainly, there's so much misinformation out there that people in society have trouble even organizing into coherent political groupings. So I'd rather not talk about politics but instead focus on information and education. Nothing else matters until the bedrock of fact is buttressed.
But... people are always going to be wrong on the internet, as the saying goes.
So: Old man yells at clouds is a famous joke from The Simpsons, and it probably fairly describes what we do when venting on social media.
Just speaking into the void, since I figure it's an exercise in futility to conduct discussions on these platforms.
Joined Dec 2022
