Damn, 6:0, that might be a new ratio record for this forum.
6 Likes
I donât know what you mean and suspect you didnât read the screenshot right.
Itâs ironâs response to your post that got 6 responses/0 likes, not your original post.
Correct. I didnât read it correctly lol
1 Like
Pace Hume, I donât think pure reason gets you public policy (âReason Is and Ought Only to Be the Slave of the Passions,â) except maybe through a Rawls-like original position, where disinterested persons configure society based on their knowledge and experience of human affairs, but the landscape of human affairs is always changing (eg, nuclear weapons and the production of surplus food and goods alters the âidealâ society).
In the essay I think Lincoln is a bit overly idealistic about law, and he tries to elide any firm statements about abolition. Still, thereâs some genuine wisdomâsaying (like Hamilton) that the ambitious will always try to alter society to their ends, but itâs not so much a philosophical work as an encomium to the founders and their ideals, which his audience would have appreciated.
100% Thomas has Zoom called into work with a tropical beach in the background.
3 Likes
IDK, Iâm not that much of a history or philosophy person. As a speech itâs overly flowery for my taste but I guess that was the fashion and expected. Morally he seems off in his examples and extreme in his views. At least from a modern pov, itâs a bit of a shock to read. But in other places there is significant insight and heâs basically right that we need our values and institutions. If I were to try to make a philosophical observation, maybe heâs anticipating ideas (from Popper?) about how to defend society from intolerance.
1 Like
Popperâs concern was actually more fascism/communism and the ability of non-democratic ideologies to thrive in democratic societies. I forget his solution, but it definitely concerns having an open society with institutional guardrails against autocracy. Lincoln seems more concerned with supporting institutions against mob rule, which has some family resemblance to Popper.
Of course, Soros was a student of Popper and his Open Society Foundation works to support Popperâs general ideas, which is why Soros is vilified by fascists.
Popper advocated for direct liberal democracy.
1 Like
Lol these fucking clowns
âa gun with a bump stock isnât technically a machine gun because you donât technically hold the trigger downâ
Congress could pass leg redefining machine gun by rate of fire and theyâll still come up with some stupid reason to strike it down
This is the kind of argument youâd see made by online libertarian bros in the 2000s, itâs the Supreme Court making a âclip vs magazineâ post.
1 Like
Time to ban semi-auto weapons entirely. If our forefathers survived with single shot weapons so can we.
1 Like
May not be as crazy as it sounds. Like 80% of America wants tighter gun control laws, Republicans have shot down any possible compromise legislation, something just has to give. If banning AR-15s isnât possible without banning all the guns, a full second amendment repeal is the only option for the left.
2 Likes
People have been saying this for like 30 years.
Nothing is going to give. Weâre just going to have a bunch of mass shootings every year like we have been. Itâs a completely normalized part of American society.
Sotomayor is right is the conservatives use textualism when they want to strike something down and but when they want something then even the plain language of the law isnât good enough.
When it comes to the Supreme Court upholding the birth control case
Distressingly, the opinion leaves breadcrumbs for these activists to follow next timeâand sets up some roadblocks to keep progressive activists out. For example, Kavanaugh writes that plaintiffs who arenât actually affected by a given regulation, like the AHM, can still âthread the causation needleâ if they show that the parties who are regulated âwill likely react in predictable ways that in turn will likely injure the plaintiffs.â The Court also clarified that an organization does not have standing merely if it âdiverts its resources in response to a defendantâs actions.â
Why does this matter? The diversion-of-resources argument comes from a landmark 1982 case called Havens Realty Corporation v. Coleman, in which a fair housing organization sought to sue an apartment complex for its refusal to rent apartments to Black âtestersââpeople who posed as potential renters to test compliance with the law. The Court ruled in Havens Realty that the organization, although it wasnât actually trying to rent apartments, nonetheless had standing to sue, in part because the realty companyâs actions forced the organization to use its limited resources to ferret out illegal discrimination.
Kavanaughâs opinion declines to extend standing to the AHM under Havens Realty . But he also goes out of his way to call Havens Realty an âunusual caseâ that the Court âhas been careful not to extendâŚbeyond its context.â If this language signals that the Court is looking skeptically at future diversion-of-resources claims, that could be bad news for civil rights groups trying to use the courts to enforce the law.
In a solo concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas comes out and says what Kavanaugh does not. In his separate opinion, Thomas takes direct aim at âassociational standingââthe legal theory that allows organizations to sue for injuries suffered by its members. âOur associational-standing doctrine appears to create serious problems, both constitutional and otherwise,â he wrote, criticizing the Court having ânever attempted to reconcile [the doctrine] with the traditional understanding of the judicial power.â
Associational standing originates from NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, a 1958 Supreme Court case in which the NAACP sued to prevent the disclosure of its member rolls to state officials, which would have put their safety at risk in the Jim Crow South. In a unanimous opinion, the Court sided with the NAACPâan outcome that avoided forcing individual Black plaintiffs in mid-1950s Alabama to sue in their own names in order to vindicate their rights.
In the years since, many civil rights groups have used associational standing to bring cases on matters that affect their membersâ interests. Environmental organizations, for example, depend on associational standing to enforce the Endangered Species Act, or to challenge development proposals that will wreak havoc on the surrounding environment. Doctors have used associational standing to sue on behalf of their patients whose rights are infringed when state laws deny them abortion careâagain, an especially important tool in cases where individual plaintiffs might reasonably fear harassment or violence.
Thomas is careful to note that he is writing with an eye to the future; âin an appropriate case,â he says, âwe should explain just how the Constitution permits associational standing.â But this is how the conservative legal movement works: Even when the outcome is, relative to the alternative, good, the conservative justices find ways to set the conservative legal movement up for future success. This time bomb didnât go off this time, but the clock is ticking.
1 Like
Like asking her to hold hands, getting turned down so asking for sex.
Cool dissent, retire
Itâs too late imo. Thereâs no way this senate confirms a satisfactory replacement.
Todayâs decision isnât even a gun control issue at heart, itâs an administrative law case. Just a precursor to the eventual explicit overturning of Chevron thatâll happen later this term, at which point itâll be complete chaos with individual judges deciding their own regulations for every federal law. Just a complete shitshow coming your way soon.