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
volkris
boosted
#ClayAndBuck, explicitly: Spirit Airlines went out of business because of something Elizabeth Warren said and absolutely not because their fuel prices shot up due to Trump's war. And also, let's sort all of us into airline teams based on which one each of us flies. #USPolitics
CLOSE!
Yes, exactly, Congress oversees the Supreme Court. But it's not that it's been extraordinarily unhelpful. The opposite: it's done its job of representing the people.
it just happens that the people don't view the Court as so shameful, by and large.
This IS how democracy works. it would be antidemocratic for Congress to dismantle the Court when the people aren't clammoring for that.
For better or worse we're satisfied with this.
Not Virginia?
If you look at the SCOTUS voting record there are an awful lot of opinions that could be described as bipartisan, if we buy the kind of circular claim that the court has been so partisan.
This bipartisanship is often attributed to Roberts' influence, so the data shows the exact opposite of what you're saying.
The SCOTUS ruling goes through the history of the VRA debunking claims made in this article.
For example, it goes through revisions in the law that specifically precluded the inclusion of a results test. That was emphatically not part of the VRA.
Kagan's senationalism was not just wrong, but it was unhelpful, promoting narratives like this that just don't hold water when examined.
If the VRA needs reform, great! We have a legislative process to get there. But we won't reform the VRA by grousing about it not saying something it never said anyway.
Just because the people we elect to Congress don't view the Court as having done such wrongs doesn't mean the Court isn't accountable.
It simply means there isn't that widespread feeling that the Court has done wrong.
@MugsysRapSheet that doesn't actually matter.
Maybe it SHOULD matter, but that's not how our elected representatives have set up the system.
The concern is a canard? Of course it is! The US legal system often relies on such fictions, especially when an issue overlaps with politics. The canard is part of the process.
ALL that matters here is that the federal agency apparently acted without legal authority.
I'd love for the law to be different, and for all politicians to be honest, and for the feds to get out of this field completely. But the courts work with the law as is, not how I personally would like it to be.
What do you mean pretty much the entire political and media class look the other way? I hear them talking about it constantly, day in and day out, far from looking the other way.
Maybe you just need a broader perspective to experience what seems so commonplace?
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.
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:
