volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@bennomatic

Well, since Supreme Court opinions are publicly available, you can read Thomas's reasoning for yourself, and you don't have to be puzzled any longer.

Here's the link to his conclusion, right from his own pen:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf

@lauren

Well, FWIW, I'd say mainstream conservative talk never had much of an IF phase. They always assumed he would be.

@fleg

I think you might be missing that just because they are part of fediverse doesn't mean they can't inject ads into the ActivityPub stream or apply whatever algorithms they see fit.

Their being part of fediverse means they can broadcast their ads more widely, which would help their business model.

Sure, a lot of people might block them, but every user who doesn't block them is an additional bit of audience they can charge for serving ads to.

@matt

@PogoWasRight

Thanks for linking directly to a copy of the opinion!

Far too few people do that, leading us to reading likely biased versions of what happened.

Also, good question as to how this would apply to hacking.

@paninid

But the rules are that no matter who is Speaker of the House, the legislative branch doesn't have the power to override constitutional amendments.

@joel

The problem is that the people we elected to Congress put in place loan repayment, so it's really not up to either the Supreme Court or the president to make that decision.

If we want student loans to be forgiven then we need to talk to our representatives or even elect different ones.

As it stands now, the people have spoken through our representatives and the other two branches of the federal government should not be overriding that democratic process.

@TwistedEagle

Ironically, that sort of approach flat out gives them the ability to control who you choose.

If you choose the guy based on who they attack, then they can tell you who to vote for by attacking who they want.

@w7voa

Ha! I think he has it backwards.

As I recall, one of the arguments the state was making was that it should not consider race, while the courts said the opposite, that race MUST be part of the process.

The court rejected the idea that voting practices should not discriminate on account of race, saying that the law requires discrimination to make up for past injustices.

@NeadReport

RSS feed with built-in feature of being able to add to it!

@jon

@NeadReport

Ha, FWIW, I go the other way.

I don't think I say anything interesting, but I want to see what interesting people say.

I really wouldn't give two wits as to whether Linus whatever see anything I wrote, but I am quite interested in seeing what he puts up.

@jon

@Bam

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::

@mdmrn

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.

@ShaMyouiMo

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.

@jik

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.

@Bam

Exactly.

@AliceMarshall

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.

@DLeeT

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.

@junecasagrande

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.

@helplessduck

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.