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
Well they also cited law, so that was a pretty important part of the decision that was required by the law.
Yeah. Reading her opinions I can never tell if Sotomayor is really as daft as she presents herself, or if she is just writing for an audience that's going to go along with it.
People who only read this sentence but don't bother reading the actual opinion might take it on faith.
Maybe that's what she's counting on. Or maybe she really honestly does not understand what's happening around her.
No, that's not how the appeals process works in the US.
The Supreme Court speaks to the specific case before it, lower courts then apply the precedent as best they can to other cases, and SCOTUS occasionally tells them they've done it correctly or not in future cases.
You see this in gun rights cases pretty frequently, with lower courts sometimes getting it wrong and SCOTUS correcting them.
As for Roberts, he made this explicit in his footnote:
"This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present."
Always remember that when acting as a court of appeals the Supreme Court isn't judging the basic case so much as it's judging what lower courts have done.
Whether the email is fraudulent is an issue for the lower court. SCOTUS isn't there to judge the evidence. It's there to judge the question presented from the lower court.
So SCOTUS is there to scrutinize what the 10th Circuit did while assuming its reading of the facts to be correct for the sake of the argument.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/21-00476qp.pdf
In his concurrence Thomas specifically says the opposite, that the Constitution was NOT colorblind.
Well right, military colleges weren't part of the case.
Someone can feel free to bring a case involving them, but SCOTUS can't really speak to cases that weren't brought before the court.
That's a fundamental part of how the Supreme Court was set up, to keep it from becoming another legislature, but one not elected by voters.
Claims that those were against the law of the land have been pretty definitively debunked, though.
I know, it made for good headlines, but it's just not reality.
Great sleuthing!
But... do you have any actual responses other than misframing me personally as a righwinger?
Any actual arguments to present?
I mean, surely you wouldn't be ceding the rational high ground to rightwingers, yeah?
I sure hope they're not the best we can do as a society.
So you don't know yourself?
Well jokes aside, I am asking you personally, because you leveled the accusation. I don't want to go ask one of them, I am curious what you think.
I read what they think. I wonder what you think.
I think it's been confirmed that RBG was facing heavy pressure to retire, but she chose to hang on for strategic reasons, for personal reasons.
I really do like to remind people that the current makeup of the court was heavily influenced by RBG'a decision to be strategic, by her own choices.
It rightfully tarnishes her story.
Wow, did you read the opinion in full? It went through great lengths to show that this was not settled law.
And illegitimate justices? Which justices specifically do you think were not appointed by a president without consent of the Senate?
What law do you think they aren't obeying?
Well, what is your reasoning to say that the current makeup of the court will destroy democracy?
So far it seems to be supporting democracy, raising up democratic branches of government in the face of the other branches that are trying to take more power for themselves.
@debrawexler@mastodon.social
A mediocre number beating low expectations is not exactly the barn burner the president might be hoping for.
That people were pretty pessimistic is a problem in itself. Managing to be a little better than the pessimistic people isn't exactly something to write home about.
Same as ever.
Media outfits and social media groups with axes to grind or going to keep on grinding those axes, keep on putting out sensationalized stories with only vague connection to the fact, and it really doesn't matter what the Court does, those outfits are just going to keep on keeping on.
That's the thing about this situation: it's a bit liberating to know that there is nothing they can do to address those people. So the Court might as well just not consider their perspectives.
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.
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:
