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
The right way to handle a corrupt judge or justice is through the legislative branch, who has the authority to impeach and remove.
Unfortunately we keep electing and reelecting representatives who are ineffective, almost proudly so.
We need to stop reelecting these jerks.
You say
"the Court’s defenders make arguments that sound outwardly reasonable, but that depend entirely on cherry-picking their examples and ignoring the counterexamples"
but that comes after you also said
"the memos actually bespeak a decision that was deeply principled"
which is more of what I've heard.
Those aren't counterexamples but statements of principle. They can't be cherrypicked because they're not based on example.
I think you have this wrong.
The technology behind Fediverse, ActivityPub, doesn't support that kind of thing, sadly. It's one of the big engineering misses of this platform.
Fediverse is all about instances, not about users. It's unfortunate, but at this point it's baked in. They can't really change it now.
But then, a lot of the developers prefer it that way, nevermind how it lets users down.
THIS.
Watch Patel perform in pubilc and it's clear that he knows his job is to roll around in the mud, to stage a fight, not to do anything serious there.
Trump's supporters want a staged WWE wrestling match. So that's what this administration is putting on.
Patel knows what he's doing.
Correction: Trump [always] chickens out on Russia to attempt to partially mitigate his screwup wrt Iran.
So many mainstream Republicans continue to demand harsh treatment of Russia and oppose the lifting of sanctions.
But Trump, being a spineless follower, waffles on who he's following on any given day.
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."
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:
