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
To be clear, this chaos existed before the SCOTUS ruling as two lower courts handed down contradictory rulings. This chaos had been going on for years.
SCOTUS really had to rule, and rule quickly, to sort out which court was right.
To be clear, the reason it applies to states where abortion is legal is because this was a matter of federal regulations from the Biden administration.
It's nationwide because it's a matter of federal drug regulation.
@klausfiend in the US system it's not as simple as asking and answering once.
There are different branches answering what they SHOULD do vs what they COULD do, and that plays out in different levels of government, and over different cases, and in different contexts.
@TheConversationUS
Well, I wouldn't say pressure on the SCOTUS, especially with this timing, but more of a way to pressure congresspeople and parties to mark their positions.
It's not inconsistency. They're different cases with different postures, and you're really not taking that context into account.
The conclusions that you're drawing here are really weak, seeking monsters in the apples vs oranges comparisons being put forward.
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.
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:
