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
SCOTUS isn't *supposed* to represent the United States. Wrong branch of government. The US is to be represented by the executive branch, with its people represented by the legislative branch.
That's why the Supreme Court's duties are largely sidelined into writing papers and concluding arguments, setting aside administrative work.
SCOTUS settles what the law says. That may not represent the US, though it would be nice if it did. If you're looking to the Court to represent the United States you're looking in the wrong place.
To be clear, I'm saying they're wrong, but when you appreciate that they're operating based on inaccurate information a lot is better understood.
Mainstream MAGA types regularly emphasize a lot of those, including things like criticizing Trump for NOT invading Iran and celebrating vague but enormous cost cutting.
Once they believe that Trump DID cut costs and triumphantly take down the eternal enemy that was Iran, then they're not operating from a point of feeling betrayed.
They believe the propaganda saying Trump has been a resounding success that kept all of his promises.
A lot of people are missing that this case is adamantly not about rights. The petitioner did not bring a rights case before the court. That's critical to the decision.
This case was not about rights of the inmate but about an agreement between the state and federal government. The state had agreed to certain things in exchange for federal funding, and the petitioner was trying to sue by saying the state had broken the agreement.
But he wasn't part of that agreement. He didn't really have a say in the matter, even if he was impacted by it.
That's not quite what the ruling said.
The border guard, noticing the charges, effectively left it to the court system and statute to sort out whether Lau had a right to be present in the country.
The border official did not effectively strip LPR status from anyone. Lau was simply subject to a clause in the INA.
I think this misses that so many mainstream Republicans emphatically believe that Trump and Republicans kept their promises. They're just misinformed about what's happening in the world.
This guy might be preaching to a particular choir, as he promotes his campaign, but I don't think it's particularly significant among Trump's base.
@renewedresistance
Sounds like they're promoting a conspiracy theory instead of simply recognizing that Americans voted for this.
20 years ago we didn't elect a Congress that was behaving this way. Now we did. Musk didn't do that. The Supreme Court didn't do that.
Voters did.
"Mr. Landor brought this lawsuit under RLUIPA seeking money damages."
There's the key. This case is NOT about his rights as he didn't sue based on his rights. This case is about an agreement between the federal and state governments, effectively a contractual agreement that he's not even a party to.
Maybe he could have sued based on religious rights, but that's not the question he put before the courts here.
@willowashmaple meh, governments establish morality every day of the week with rules ranging from rules against speeding through requirements to deem one worthy of public assistance.
Judgements on morality aren't establishment. They're political. Yes, subject to whatever the current culture trend deems moral, which changes all the time.
That's democracy for you.
@newstik in this case, because of how the law is written, a pivotal question is whether Lau was or was not already admitted to the US, whether he was seeking readmission when he returned.
The border guard classified him, and he challenged the guard's classification. Part of his challenge was over what the guard established.
In short, Lau tried to bring up this establishment as a defense and the Court said no, that argument doesn't hold water. The Court said the guard doesn't have to establish anything (speaking loosly).
The answer is important: misinformed and mislead voters elected congresspeople that enable and promote it.
Congresspeople, Democrats included, are the enablers, yes, but we voters enabled *them*, as we keep reelecting the same congresspeople who vote against our interests before ducking responsibility.
The more we focus on Trump the more that cycle continues with congresspeople ducking responsibility and voters reelcting them, ourselves ducking responsibility.
@RachelThornSub those other reasons are probably the hard part.
It's not so much about the cycle between developers and Linux as about hardware vs software developers.
Even if that was my argument, which it's not, it doesn't follow that having a Court is moot. The practical aspects of having a Court--the administrative and formal elements--are, again, a huge part of the Court that is too often overlooked or misunderstood.
Even if a ball is clearly fair and will be called fair there still must be an umpire to make the call.
That's why we have a Supreme Court.
@cwebber what kind of actor-like properties did it not retain?
@lispi314 I found that in theory ATProto seems to go out of its way to unbind actors from servers, allowing hosting to move around.
Do you think it didn't live up to that promise?
But do those convergences seem like crude (and/or crudely implemented) features being bolted on messily? I haven't looked into it, so I don't know, but I can imagine such shoehorning of functionality that doesn't really fit.
@Anomnomnomaly why can't the pension funds and so forth sell yet?
@MusiqueNow they say the same thing about liberals. And they provide examples.
The namecalling doesn't actually help anything. It just results in fingerpointing and leaning into false stereotype.
There are a few reasons to have a Supreme Court.
One huge job of the SCOTUS that dovetails here is to be a practical manager. Even when judicial outcomes are predictable there still has to be someone to design the literal and figurative paperwork for lower courts.
Even as the Court issues rulings, how do lower courts actually implement them? Someone has to design the procedures, and that's what SCOTUS does.
Your question of why bother having one is a great question, one that far too many misunderstand even as they promote bad ideas about how to change the institution they know far too little about.
That's right, conservatives propose a bad faith negotiation about a bad faith negotiation as a way of squaring inconvenient realities with their preconceived notions.
Confirmation bias is at the heart of the MAGA movement.
Some conservative tweet going around ― #Trump signed the MOU with #Iran knowing they wouldn't abide by it to show the world that they weren't oper...
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:
