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
People say that, but when I actually go read opinions and listen to oral arguments, I don't think he's a wildcard at all. He seems pretty consistent has he addresses the actual questions before the Court.
A problem is that there's so much misreporting on the actual questions before the Court, and that's where that impression seems to come from.
When I see people complain about him being a wild card, often enough they're citing issues that miss what the Court actually did.
That's not an accurate reading of the order.
The lower court could have always acted on the request to dismiss; this doesn't free it to do so.
Instead, this tells the lower court that it has to at least address the issues raised in the request. They're really weighty issues, too, so it's not largely symbolic. They stand to have broader application far outside of Bannon.
Now the lower court can deny the request, but it has to at least consider it.
A lot of Americans may be hoping judges will save democracy, but that's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government is structured.
In the US, judges don't have such power or authority. Their branch is intentionally restrained, with authority put in the hands of the other branches more directly answerable to the people.
It's mainly up to Congress, the representatives we elect, to save democracy on our behalf. We need to elect better congresspeople, but too many give them a pass by focusing on the courts.
They're not being charged to exist. They're being taxed based on income to provide for society as a whole.
Yes, taxation can be a burden, and we can talk about how to conduct taxation fairly and equitably, but that framing isn't helpful.
MAGA, for years: #Iran is a death cult. They don't value life, and 42 virgins and etc.
MAGA, today: Why doesn't the death cult bow to our demands as we threaten death?
@SecondJon never said it was one-sided...
#Trump supporters keep suggesting that critics of the guy have a knee-jerk reaction against any position he takes, because it couldn't possibly be that the criticisms were founded.
But it's funny to realize that so many of his supporters have a knee-jerk reaction to assume that he's right. In fact, they are explicit about this, talking about having faith in his judgment even if they don't understand it.
Funny how that works.
Maybe in the back of their minds they recognize their own prejudices and just project that onto everyone else.
KBJ misunderstood the facts of the case, that the other eight understood.
This was emphatically NOT about incidental restrictions on free speech. Had it been then the opinion would have likely gone the other way.
This was about direct censorship of disfavored speech, not incidental restriction.
This is an instance where being the outlier is a pretty good indicator that maybe the person misunderstands what they're looking at.
It's just nuts to say this opens such a can of worms. She might as well have been talking about the implications of our living on a flat earth.
But this case was emphatically not about subjecting young people to conversion therapy practices, and that was key to the contect of the decision.
Where, specifically, did you find the opinion irrational?
In an 8-1 ruling it's a tall order to say all eight acted irrationally together.
Interesting analogy.
The poor solicitor for Trump is going to be put in an unwinnable position, having to perform for Trump instead of focusing on trying to somehow win in front of the justices.
Poor Vincenzo. I guess the best he can do is try to trick Trump into thinking he won.
@PaulDitz if that's true then it should have been brought up to the Court.
It wasn't put before them, though, so they weren't able to consider that in their deliberations.
In fact, as I recall the plaintiffs pretty much admitted the opposite.
And remember, we're in this position because RBG openly tried to time her retirement.
Hopefully folks learned a lesson.
@MusiqueNow Well it can be both, I suppose.
Protections against government censorship are especially important when government gets to decide what is malpractice and thus subject to censorship.
That's the point.
@normative.bsky.social Exactly!
Under this ruling states can't censor anyone ranging from an activist to a medical provider that wants to support or promote gender-affirming care.
Well, read the opinion and it's clear how it could happen, and why it's not awful.
Don't ask Slate. The SCOTUS itself tells you why it comes to rulings.
That's like saying you have a great design for a perpetual motion machine, it's just more complicated to explain.
No, your proposal just isn't very realistic no matter how much additional complications you want to add to it. The incentives don't align that way.
The government of Iran wants to prosecute US officials under US law? What in the world? Plenty of us in the country want to see that happen, but what does Iran have to do with it?
If there's no other way that could happen other than a foreign government bringing suit then there's no way that could happen.
@paul No, that's the opposite of what the opinion said.
Kids cannot be subject to harmful conversion therapy according to the opinion. The state has every right to regulate such therapy, if you want to call it therapy, and the opinion is clear about that.
The only thing the opinion says is not allowed is censorship. Everything else is on the table.
OR when there's an event like this that seems to run up against what you think would happen, it's an opportunity to reconsider whether maybe you misunderstand what's going on.
When the decision is so solid, then maybe the reporting about the case has been misleading, and there's more to the story.
When the half of the Court that is good comes down like this, well maybe the decision is simply correct.
Yes, in this case the opinion explicitly recognizes that there is room for regulation of conversion therapy. It's just one little method of regulation that isn't constitutional.
@cwarzel.bsky.social Well it is honest...
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:
