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
It's important not to chop up the quote:
""I am concerned, as you said, that the combination of campaign finance laws and this court's decisions over the years"
To leave out the laws is to miss a really vital part of the position!
SCOTUS already pointed to the answer: early history of the US that helps us see the meaning of the Constitution as written.
The Federal Reserve has roots in the early history while contemporary agencies operate very differently from the Fed and have no real analog among the agencies created by those who set up the Constitution.
We could do more to make sure the operation of the Fed matches constitutional guardrails, but your question her has been addressed by the SCOTUS.
@RememberUsAlways I thought by now the general consensus was that Biden was so far gone by the end of his term that he became unqualified for the office.
He's not exactly a reputable source for thoughts at that point.
@RememberUsAlways the folks we elect to Congress are free to remove justices from the bench if they think the justices aren't doing their jobs well.
For better or worse Congress is happy with what they're doing.
So why would Congress vote to change anything? They're satisfied with the justice.
Siiiigh
#ClayAndBuck:You see, there are good immigrants, and there are bad immigrants. The good ones were raised in western countries with knowledge of we...
We'll see if the approach stands, or if it's easily rejected as a cute prosecutorial stunt.
But the US system was designed so that Congress couldn't create independent agencies. Congress must fall.
OR we can amend the Constitution to authorize them.
But when Congress is contradicted by the three branch federal system, the system wins.
That's not what Robert said, if you listen to even his entire phrase, much less his entire sentence.
He described Humphrey's as "a dried husk of whatever people used to think it was," saying that understanding of the ruling has dramatically changed over the years.
Adding in that context, he's saying the exact opposite of how you're framing it.
@Nonilex No really this is Jackson being honest about not understanding things 🙂
She really has not brought much to the Court, and often has to be educated on the spot about things that she really should have known already.
@HopelessDemigod No, that's backwards.
Congress has no authority over the executive branch to create such protections in the first place. It would be in violation of separation of powers among co-equal branches. It would put Congress above the other branch.
So no, it's not about destroying the structure of government and taking away power, it's about recognizing the structure of government and the limits of power.
Sotomayor really doesn't understand the structure of the federal government, and that's a shame.
@RememberUsAlways I mean the headline is simply false.
No, The court doesn't get to remake government. Wrong branch.
@steter The key is to emphasize that this is yet another broken promise from Trump.
That's his whole schtick, the whole reason people vote for him, because he supposedly keeps his promises. But he doesn't. So let's emphasize that this is yet another broken promise from the guy.
@mikec415 no.
Better to build up than be a dick even if the cause is righteous.
#Trump is spending millions of dollars and wasting the time of special forces teams to sink motorboats and murdering their drivers who are just trying to get drugs to Americans who need cheaper drugs.
We really need to emphasize how absurd that is.
Want to lower drug prices? Stop killing the people trying to bring drugs to the US!
That's really a foolish take. It's conspiratorial thinking.
No, this is just dumb politics. There's no big move here to reorient away from Europe and toward Russia. That's just sensationalism.
We elected some dumb people who are doing dumb things. There's no need for anything other than that.
@fkamiah17 this is conspiracy theory stuff.
Yes, we do have lots of choices. We can see the lots of choices before us. Oh, all of the choices are provided by a few smelly actors? Oh we are supposed to focus on that? Don't let your eyes deceive you, you don't have lots of choices because of these smelly actors?
No that's stupid.
We do have lots of choices. We can see them for ourselves. That some people want us to join their crusades against the providers doesn't change the facts that we have lots of choices.
A direct link to the order:
To be clear, it's not so much that SCOTUS put the House maps back into effect as it stayed a likely defective process of the lower court.
At this stage in the process SCOTUS was focusing on the lower court, not on Texas.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the lower court seems to have made substantial errors in its process, so it stayed the likely erroneous ruling.
The question before the Court at this juncture isn't actually about Texas or voting at all, but about Constitutional process.
You're missing the real issue, though. Gerrymandering is absolutely allowed and even encouraged in the US system. That the map is gerrymandered is not relevant to this question.
The question in the case is whether the METHOD of gerrymandering was legal. And the specific question before the Supreme Court here is whether the lower court followed proper procedure.
SCOTUS found that the lower court didn't follow legal procedure, so it stayed the lower court decision.
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:
