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 not by fiat. It's by judicial processes established by law.
A federal agency likely exceeded its authority to authorize that distribution, and as per judicial procedure the circuit agreed that the authorization should be nullified.
Not the brightest, it seems.
It's a naive position, as if there is no particular skill set or area of expertise that would benefit a person in political office.
It's like saying, no one better to do heart surgery on us then someone else experiencing heart failure!
No, these US policies are often wildly unpopular. It's not selfish capitalist ideology on the voting public but a voting public that doesn't have the information they need to make a difference.
So many in the voting public vote over and over for candidates that vote the opposite of the way they want, but the voters don't even know.
With that disconnect you can't draw a direct line between ideology and the outcome of votes.
The focus on Trump misses the more important aspect: the people that we elect to Congress are actively complicit in the stuff his family is doing in government.
Democrats and Republicans in Congress all vote in ways that support this.
And yet we re-elect them over and over.
Until we call them out, the bad governance is going to continue. So long as we keep voting for them we will keep getting more of the same.
Meh. It always bothers me that the Fediverse architecture centers around instances and not people.
It's not so much sticking it to the man as substituting a different man.
It could have been actually people focused, but they went a different way.
This case is fundamentally about a federal agency, the FDA, violating statutory procedures. The court ruled that no, FDA, you do have to obey the law as your regulate drugs.
Given that context, what the case is presenting, multiple courts have acknowledged that it's effectively nationwide already.
Sadly, this keeps coming up in case after case on this topic: NO the courts didn't ban mailing of abortion pills, and the banning of abortion pills is not what's going up to the Supreme Court.
What happened was that the FDA seems to admit that it acted in violation of law, and courts are grappling with how to respond to likely illegal agency actions as the legal process moves forward.
All of this other stuff surrounding RvW and abortion access are secondary to the core case about an agency acting illegally.
And that's acting illegal in the context of drug regulation at that. It's probably kind of imporant! but getting lost in the drama and sensational political rhetoric.
That's not quite what Louisiana is arguing, nor is it the core argument that the court ruled on.
At its heart this comes down to the FDA having acted in ways that probably violate the law. This is about FDA procedure, not LA or Mifepristone directly.
The FDA seems to admit that it acted wrongly. The courts are deciding what to do with that.
See the ruling here.
Nah, as bad as KBJ is at her job on the Court, she just represents the way democratic processes put rhetoric and popularity above merit.
But that's how the system works. It's the worst... except for all the others.
Government is necessarily a political system. This is what comes from politics. There should be no surprise at the outcomes.
Gotta embrace the political dimension and work with it because there's no getting away from it.
Not that popular political rhetoric has much to do with legal terminology, but...
Yes? Such terminology is pretty common everywhere from talking about the country being a good player on the world state, a citizen of the world, as if it was an individual, or talking about the country paying its share into one international effort or another.
It's odd that you haven't heard this.
Critically, the situation in #Louisiana was already chaos as different courts said that the electoral map was both required AND forbidden.
The Supreme Court ruling brought some order to that chaos, but state officials are still trying to clean up the chaos that existed before the SCOTUS ruling.
This kind of thing has been a longstanding result of the VRA and its interpreters.
To be clear, it's not that the Supreme Court is weighing ending migrants' protected status but rather weighing whether the president can.
SCOTUS itself doesn't have a say in the decision here. It's only saying whether the president can legally make the decision either way.
The thing is, one person one vote brings up so many OTHER problems, which is why we don't do it in the US.
It's a case where no option is perfect, all have tradeoffs, and we've decided the benefits of district voting outweigh the benefits of one-person-one-vote.
That's especially because we want to hold powerful officials to account, and district voting better addresses that goal.
If anything, we should be expanding the number of districts, really leaning into it.
That article gets so much stuff wrong, starting with what the SCOTUS ruling actually said and running through the history of the VRA as spelled out in the ruling and briefs in the case, and how the VRA has actually worked.
I don't know who wrote it, but they're not a reliable source.
Here's the ruling from a reliable source:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf
@Thumper1964 a lot of people get this backwards (a lot of reporting gets it backwards, so that's understandable).
SCOTUS didn't really say corporations are people. It often said the opposite in its rulings.
BUT
Confusion (and political rhetoric) comes out of a legislative shorthand, a term of art ONLY in the context of drafting legislation, where legislators say when we use the term "people" in a statute we normally include corporations just so we don't have to keep repeating it.
That's the long and short of it. People are told this shorthand is meaningful, but it's really not.
I think you can see Trump's weakness coming and going, both in theory and practice.
In theory the guy's support should be eroding as he engages in unpopular endless wars, makes unhinged pronouncements, offends religious folk, and sets public policy that impacts all Americans negatively with high costs for gas.
In practice we see the Republican majority in the House erode and the loss of candidates that Trump supports, along with a genera acceptance that his support is so small that Republicans will lose the House.
That's not to mention that Trump probably only had enough support to win reelection against a lousy Democratic candidate anyway. He didn't start from very far ahead, and he's slipping from that level.
This is the mindset of the children that drove #Trump into office and continue to support him even now.
They don't understand anything past the most superficial, "He spends time with me so he must like me!" level. And they apply this to international foreign policy.
They believe flattery must be honest, and this example shows that they think that way.
#BrianKilmeade: King Charles visited Trump and they had a great time. The king was charmed by Trump and by the end of the meeting the king asked f...
Always remember that these administration officials are mainly preaching to their choirs in appearances like this. And it's an increasingly small choir.
They say a lot of things that don't make sense unless you realize that they're talking to the folks that already believe what they're saying.
It highlights the folly in putting so much stake in what some government writes on its own piece of paper.
If the government wants to write down on its little piece of paper that one is a meat popsicle, well, a rose by any other name...
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:
