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, no, that is a very off base way of describing what happened.
No, the Supreme Court did not decide against ending US democracy. That was not on the table at all.
In fact, in a way it went the opposite direction, as the court agreed to see judicial branches overrule democratically elected representative branches.
But yeah, it was definitely not a ruling against ending US democracy.
Meh, these days pardons are also viewed as a way to escape unfounded criminal prosecution.
So it wouldn't necessarily be that they knew they had done something criminal. It would be that they are afraid they would be targeted unfairly or politically for prosecution.
To be clear, I was referring to the state court role in overriding the democratically elected legislature. SCOTUS was recognizing that role.
But yep, this takes away the power of the people to elect legislators to manage these things.
Why in the world should the SCOTUS be representative of the nation's demographics?
It's is emphatically not a representative body; it is there to be a check on the representative branch.
Yes, representation is paramount. In the representative branch of government. That's why the federal government was designed that way.
When someone is pointing out that a rule would lead to a consequence that doesn't seem like a good one, it's at least worth considering updating the rule to preclude that outcome.
Here and in other places.
Like I said, I do hear people arguing for that position based on pure interpretation, even without advocacy, even while being critical of it.
On a slightly different topic, I find it funny how people are complaining about giving more control to the democratic branch, celebrating that the judicial branch is to override the representatives of the people.
The story isn't so black and white.
volkris
boosted
The worst thing that ever happened in software engineering was when Kirk asked Scotty how long something would take and Scotty said thirty minutes and Kirk said you’ve got five and Scotty got it done in five and impressionable children watched this and grew up to become managers.
No, that's not what that means.
In fact, the Court rejected the stalker's request that the whole charge be thrown out. The Court OPPOSED the stalker's request.
But no, that's simply not how the SCOTUS works as it hears appeals, and you can see that happen over and over in opinions: even when it might want to side with or against the petitioner, its job is to judge the lower court, not to try the accused person all over again.
If nothing else remember that that would violate double jeopardy.
It's not allowed in the US court system.
I think you're missing the part of the argument where it's not a question of what *should be* as much as what *is*.
**To be clear, I think their argument is wrong, but...**
When I hear the Independent State Legislature theorists making their case, they're not generally passing value judgment on what should be. They're simply saying, well, this is what the Constitution provides for, and we can change that through amendment, but for now, this is what it is.
Such policies don't strike me as hostile.
Facebook setting norms for usage of their own service is hardly imposing on others in a hostile way.
If anything it's the opposite, inviting one vision into their own environment. Building up, not tearing down.
@supernovae@universeodon.com
That's not what happened, though.
The SCOTUS doesn't really rule on things like stalkers. The Court rules on other courts, judging what other courts did, not the basic case itself.
SCOTUS said that the lower court didn't get 1st Amendment law correct, regardless of who might have been in front of the court, and said it needed to consider it a different way that affords everyone who might come before the lower court a different level of protection.
The Supreme Court didn't nullify the conviction of a stalker. It told a lower court to protect free speech, as the US Constitution demands.
This headline is pretty far off from what the ruling actually said, so it's funny to interpret your post as saying NYT is still corrupt and illegitimate.
Accurate, though.
Republicans rarely contend with the fact that so many things they're concerned about happened in Trump's administration, under his supervision.
It's nice when they start noticing, but since the indictments came about I've been seeing it come up much less.
This is a misunderstanding how the court works, though.
Alito wasn't at all weakening the powers of the EPA. The Court was pointing out that the EPA didn't have those powers in the first place.
It's up to Congress to delegate power; Alito doesn't have that authority.
It's a dramatic story based on confusing branches of the US government.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength...
I think we can criticize underdeveloped and impractical standards without resorting to logical contradiction.
Well it varies state by state.
SCOTUS says merely that the legislature has to follow state law, whatever it may be for the particular state.
Empowerment of the democratic branch is democracy-denying?
There is plenty to question about the independent state legislature take on things, but it goes a bit offbase to go that direction.
@ubergeek @supernovae@universeodon.com
The actor is hostile?
That just comes across as namecalling, seeking to ban someone based on a personal vendetta.
They're justices, not priests.
Morality has nothing to do with looking at the laws passed by the democratic process and answering questions about what they say.
Heck, they would be violating their office should they put personal moral qualms ahead of what the peoples' representatives wrote into law.
But that position of Kavanaugh is pretty unsurprising if you follow his opinions and statements at oral argument.
It's only questionable reporting that promotes this myth about how he reasons.
Wow, no, this reporter didn't understand the issues or implications in the case.
This wasn't about gutting voting rights but rather about who gets to decide state voting issues within the normal bounds of voting rights.
The voting rights applied regardless of who was calling the shots. The legislature would have had no additional ability to intrude on those rights; legislature would have been equally bound by them.
It's like figuring out who gets to call the play in a football game. The rules of the game still applied no matter who was calling the play.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
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:
