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
Tim Cook / U.S.-centric political discourse ⚠️🇺🇸🤡
Fortunately, I think more and more people recognize that Trump is out of his mind, and that nothing spewing forth from him is worth taking seriously.
That's not really the argument in this case.
The major issue is that the state allows all sorts of discrimination, just not THIS discrimination, making it discrimination between discrimination (yes, CO made a mess of this) against religion.
It's not about anti-discrimination laws, but about laws being ignored, so the complete opposite.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/25-00581qp.pdf
IPFS is all about static content.
If you have something dynamic, IPFS is probably not the right tool for the job.
That's not quite the issue in St. Mary v Roy.
It's not over whether the diocese has the right to refuse enrollment to children of gay parents--of course it can as it's their schools--but rather whether it can participate in a state program that allows discrimination in other ways but not this one.
So CO has made kind of a mess of its program, discriminating over discrimination. Some discrimination is OK, but not this discrimination.
Some are allowed to ignore the law but some aren't.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/25-00581qp.pdf
Yes.
I've seen quite a lot of response to that as being pretty reasonable, showing that the Court is taking its role seriously and learning from behavior of past administrations.
What? The memos that leaked showed the opposite, that they were apolitically protecting the structure of the federal government.
It's really showing these conspiracy theories and dramatic stories to be false.
They're not using the shadow docket to regularly solve politically charged cases. They're using it to temporarily provide relief while the process works its way to solution.
That's the entire point of these orders: this case is in process, but it's going to take time, so how do we minimize damages during that delay?
Are you committing to withholding your vote from any candidate who doesn't back that plan?
And the justices that Trump didn't appoint (with permission of the senators that we elect, mind) agreed that the Trump justices were correct.
So?
The Court was unanimous in its decision. Not a single justice said "three dipsticks" got it wrong. Maybe don't fall for the dramatic sensationalized stories so many are telling about the members of the Court.
And yet, they were still not involved in the case itself. They merely pointed out laws dictating the venue where the trial was to be heard.
That's exactly the question more people needed to be asking themselves this whole time because the answer corrects so many assumptions.
How did this idiot become the champion of so many? Because so many projected themselves onto him; this loser is not a leader but a suck-up to a mob.
MAGA folks don't actually like Trump. Rather, they convince themselves that he's someone he's not, and he's such a spineless wimp that he goes along with it.
Trump's not in charge here. The MAGA crowd leads him around. THEY are the ones that need to be addressed, not Trump.
Trump is not involved in this case.
It's between states and Chevron.
If Trump was involved he might simply drop the case or settle nicely, but since he's not, the prosecution of Chevron continues after this decision.
I mean, it's pure invention in the sense that all law is invented. But this isn't Thomas's invention. It's a longstanding mechanism for providing a check on states that might try to use their courts inappropriately.
Federal removal is nothing new, and the Court unanimously applied the longstanding rules to this case, pointing out that federal removal covers exactly this sort of situation.
The quote below is the problem as it gets the story EXACTLY backwards. This is the OPPOSITE of the message that the decision sends.
La Gordiloca sued the wrong people, as in, the civil charges that she filed were against the wrong parties for the suit to be successful. It was right to throw the case out since that's not how the legal system works.
"First Amendment experts say this decision sends the message that if police make a bad-faith or far-fetched interpretation of a law in a way that violates someone’s constitutional rights, including those of journalists or protesters, the courts will protect the cops and prosecutors from consequences."
It took Trump's people way too long to discover the phrase "nuclear dust" but here we are.
For all these weeks they had to grapple with the contradiction where he totally and completely destroyed Iran's nuclear program, but now the US needs to go spend serious resources because Iran's nuclear program continues.
If only someone had thought of "nuclear dust" weeks ago they could have squared that circle.
#BrianKilmeade: #Iran has to give up its "nuclear dust."Nuclear dust this, nuclear dust that.#USPolitics #rhetoric
It's up to you and your intentions.
If you want the others to see the post then sure, leave them tagged. If you don't think they'd be interested in the direction you're going, take them off.
volkris
boosted
Trump "failed to implement any of his major policy initiatives through executive order in any realistic sense. Think about the Alien Enemies Act, federalizing the National Guard, worldwide tariffs, birthright citizenship. These are the main pillars of Donald Trump’s policy presidency, the substantive aspects of it. And they’ve all failed":
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/16/opinion/supreme-court-trump.html
copy: @renewedresistance #politics #SCOTUS #HumanRights
Meh, I've known plenty of Christians who ABSOLUTELY say to their pastors what they say to you. Heck, I've known some that were so bold that they left to start their own congregations over disagreements with their pastors.
Christians and their pastors dismissing each other isn't even rare where I come from.
(I personally think it's a sad case of confirmation bias--only tell me what I want to hear, preacherman)
But in the end, these folks may cloak themselves with authority, but that's not a cloak anyone else has to respect. Let them cosplay significance.
I imagine a big part of that religion-in-society picture is the neverending jousting between different sects of Christianity, Catholic vs protestant being the most obvious on the large scale.
There's a lot of interesting nuance and implications for organization of society at large--including non-religious aspects--in there.
If you're familiar with the cathedral vs bazaar allegory, same thing. There's a strong analogy between someone doing their own research to find the OT passages to support their priors and someone doing their own research in medicine, both ignoring what experts have to say.
I'd say this isn't so much about a Christian right trend as much as a trend in society as a whole.
KBJ is often shortsighted, and she's showing it here too.
The staying of lower court decisions is often the exact opposite, AVOIDING disruption by the lower courts as the process runs its course.
After all, a stayed decision doesn't disrupt. It is stayed. It's allowing a decision to take effect that threatens disruption.
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:
