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
I don't think that is part of the process that was outlined in the complaints against the universities.
So that's probably not impacted by this ruling.
I would read that the other way around.
Because he benefited from it he's in an even better position to have an informed opinion about it.
Not that it has anything to do with the laws that they were respecting with this decision, that have nothing to do with their own experiences.
There was no service academy involved in this case.
They didn't exclude service academies. Service academies weren't involved in the first place.
Doesn't that mean this court whittles away at white women?
If there comes a law and then a compelling controversy surrounding that law, then yes.
It's vital to emphasize here that this case was based on laws passed by Congress. The reason that's so important is because it emphasizes that we can address these problems by electing better lawmakers.
But we CAN'T address these issues if we're too busy yelling at the court to get around to electing people who will pass needed laws.
@edwardchampion@universeodon.com
But the judicial branch is by definition and constitution anti-democratic. The branch is a check on the democratic branch, the legislature.
If we want to preserve democracy then we need to focus on improving the democratic branch. We need to stop reelecting jerks to Congress. Which we do, over and over, for some reason.
You can't fix democracy by focusing on and expanding an anti-democratic branch.
That's like trying to turn a screw by getting bigger and bigger hammers. No, just get the right screwdriver.
Oh no, not at all. I'm not saying they're good or bad, nor can the Supreme Court say they're good or bad.
They are what they are, and they can be changed depending on whom we decide to elect to Congress.
SCOTUS said the laws of the country, as determined by the democratic process, don't allow for such racial discrimination.
Is that bad? Is that good? Well, the people we elect to Congress say it's the way to go, so that's what the Court was left with.
We should elect better people if we want the laws changed.
@Geh4Peh@woof.group
Yes, but that's the sort of thing that the legislative branch, not the judicial branch, is supposed to be determining.
So far we keep electing and reelecting representatives to Congress who aren't interested in taking those actions. We should probably reconsider and stop reelecting such people if we want change.
It's not for the Court to say what we need. It's for the Court to respect what the democratic process decides we need, and we all need to engage with the democratic process to make it happen.
Yes, and elect lawmakers who will actually do something about it!
For way too long we have elected and then reelected representatives to Congress who have not thought issues like donor and legacy admissions were worth addressing.
And at this moment we need to be very clear that those lawmakers should not be allowed to escape accountability by pointing fingers at the Court.
No, they are lawmakers, it is their responsibility to promote new laws that address these issues. Otherwise they are not doing their job. And we need to hold them accountable for that.
I mean the two aren't mutually exclusive.
We need better laws. We keep reelecting bad lawmakers. We should knock that off, kick out lawmakers making bad law, and put better people in Congress.
The Supreme Court rests its decisions on the laws made by the awful lawmakers that we keep reelecting for some reason.
Funny thing is how the last paragraph dovetails with the Court's reasoning.
Ah, but that's not part of the game.
Innocence of perjury is not a requirement for being on the Court.
Maybe it should be, but at this point, it's not.
Well, the people we keep electing are apparently cool with that, so, yep.
We need to stop electing and reelecting these jerks. So long as we vote them back into office, I guess we're satisfied with it.
I think there's a difference in that the entire executive authority of government is explicitly organized around this one, electable, accountable, and impeachable figure.
What is the alternative that's so much better that it would replace the presidential system?
King was replaced by parliament because parliament was better than king. What's the better alternative to president?
Well there IS a magic bullet of sorts: if we don't like a law, we should pass a better law!
If we don't like how Title VI of the Civil Rights Act interacts with college admission, then let's fire the silver bullet of reforming it to sanction affirmative action.
This is on us. We elect the jerks who haven't fixed these laws in all this time.
Let's elect better lawmakers.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act isn't exactly known for having been driven forward by movement conservatives trying to enshrine white rule.
But I suppose if it was, well, even more reason to reform it.
Which justice was not appointed with the consent of the Senate?
The reason that sort of line is so at odds with reality is that the Court doesn't have the authority to entrench anything. It can only call out action that's at odds with democratically developed law.
The Supreme Court can't tell universities how to admit students. It can point out when their means of admission run afoul of law, but it can't dictate to them the way to act.
The quote here misrepresents the actual functioning of the Court in the US system of government, and that's its fatal flaw.
US politics
I think it's key that so many of these issues have been talkingpoints for years, so we've had plenty of warning that we needed to revisit and reform laws that were on shaky ground, but we didn't elect legislators who'd do it.
We were warned for generations. We didn't heed the warnings. So here we go.
It's a statement of fact...
There's no argument here. The fact is, the question before the court was about this legislation.
I'm not doing any analysis here or making any statements of value. This is flat out the question presented to the Court, and I believe I linked to it above.
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:
