The supreme court even as a concept is one of the most asinine yet accepted institutions in the world. On par with the Catholic church, but so much worse because it actually has enormous and direct power over 330+ million people. I am dreaming and pining for the day that someone in power, most likely a president, just legitimately tells them to fuck off. They have no enforcement power and they fucking know it. I'm yearning for someone to have the courage, but it's as clear as it possibly can be that it certainly won't be a Democrat.
The thing is that the court only has so much power right now because Congress is so fucking broken. If Congress where in working order it could just legislate all the shit that the court is blocking the executive on.
Is there any sense when Congress went off the rails? Some folks I have listened to say it was around the 90s but there were obviously very contentious times before then.
The Congress has never consistently functioned well, I'm not entirely convinced it's designed to. For the current mess, both in Congress and American politics in general, probably the most influential source is Newt Gingrich's electioneering policy of attacking wedges and saying anything you have to to get headlines without regards to the truthfulness of your statements. That's what reshaped the Republican party to be particularly welcoming to extremists, popularized science denial, and led to the modern wave of Christian Nationalism.
Can you elaborate on the comparison to the church? You don't like a panel having authority so you want to consolidate it to a president unilaterally ignoring the third branch? Would term limits on judges change how you see the court?
The Catholic church is an unjustifiable and ridiculous institution in the same way the supreme court is. The Catholic church also had a lot of control over the lives of many people for a very long time, although that influence has obviously waned in recent centuries and decades (although it's clearly still not completely gone). Now, as far as the president having control, I will also say fuck the presidency, but it would always be my hope that a person in that position would do anything in their power as a president and a person to stand up to unjustifiable institutions like the supreme court. Obviously a president couldn't abolish the supreme court single-handedly, nor do I think that would necessarily, inherently be a good thing, but I do think that a president could and should call out the obvious reasons for which the institution needs to be abolished, because it absolutely does. The fact that nine human beings can directly control the lives of millions and millions and millions of people is an absolute travesty. I don't even feel dissimilarly about congress, but obviously it's a bit better because they are actually elected. In general, though, I am a very strong proponent of direct democracy. Term limits are a starting point, but it would be akin to applying a bandaid to a gaping, oozing wound.
I find this line of thinking to be flawed. If race can be excluded as a factor for consideration, how is the most qualified people getting ahead a bad thing? I couldn't get into Harvard even if I had good blackmail on the Dean. Maybe I don't understand the argument but that's my take.
The people getting into Harvard, many of them get in because of social connection’s rather than merit. The social connections of their parents. It’s also super common to just buy their way in.
The students getting in on merit are the ones they let in because they have a reputation to maintain and can’t have everyone being dumb. That would look bad.
Further, even if that weren’t true, the reason “the most qualified” seem to be rich white kids from rich white families is simply because they can afford much better educations. So, if you want to promote diversity it can’t just be about academic qualifications because you have people who’ve always been in power buying academic quals for the kids- so they always will be in power.
Affirmative action isn’t about taking away from one group and giving it to another, it’s about giving back to a group that historically has been taken from- its about righting a past wrong- you can’t do that solely on merit, when the system was designed to perpetuate a certain kind of status quo
We don't need to right past wrongs. Just continue to be good people and give everyone and equal opportunity. That's what I do every day. Just be a good person to everyone you see, be willing to share knowledge to those who ask and elevate those around you. I don't specifically treat anyone differently than others based on "past wrongs".
Im sorry, but that's just a flawed way of thinking and perpetuates a divide.
Those "past wrongs" are still impacting people alive today. When one racer has been given a two hundred year head start, it's easy to look at the race when everyone's running and think it is fair.
The American system doesn’t care about the centre. They use the media to trick the centre into thinking there’s no difference between the 2 options, then they just have to mobilise more crazies on their side than the other side. If even 10% of non-voters just got off their ass for an hour once every 4 years, they would control most governments in the US.
The continued narrative of "both sides are the same" is astounding to me.
Absolutely, both sides how to corporate interests, trend towards war-hawking when needed. But one side is trying to expand abortion and trans Healthcare, keep gay marriage legal, keep public education accessible and sufficient(ish), change Healthcare from private profit-hungry companies, and keep voting rights for all.
They are very much not the same. One is the baseline for what should be expected at minimum, and the other is about 30 ft below that line, screaming about library books and arguing some parents don't have a say in their child's Healthcare...
one of the only substances to have fatal withdrawal
implicated in numerous deaths (due to intoxication)
harms pregnancy
can cause heart issues, neurological issues, liver damage, etc.
not a scheduled DEA substance
Marijuana
none of the above (effects on pregnancy can include low birth weight and preterm labor - evidence is mixed. Certainly nothing close to the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome).
There is conflicting data on the outcome of marijuana with pregnancy around the effect on birth weight and potential for preterm labor. To be clear: marijuana is not recommended in pregnancy.
The point I was trying to draw was between fetal alcohol syndrome, which is potentially devastating and the evidence is conclusive.
Why do they capitalize “Black” so many times in the article? I thought maybe I’m crazy and there’s some grammatical rule about it but “white” is never capitalized.
It’s a form of micro-marginalization. Some people do it without realizing, some do it intentionally. Just another way to “other” some demographic in a subtle way.
You can see it done with the words indigenous and native too.
This is so informative. In programming I’d know to search “style guide” but for some reason when it comes to real writing the search term didn’t come to mind. Thanks!
Different orgs use different style guides as some have already said. In almost all Black is capitalized, whereas white is rarely capitalized but you still see it occasionally.
I’m torn on white/White personally. The reason given by most is that it falls in line with white supremacist rhetoric, and generally has been capitalized exclusively in that context. Totally valid argument to not use it for that reason.
On the other hand I think leaving it lowercase risks making it an assumed default state, or makes it so that white people think of “racial” issues as something that does not include them. Plus allowing white supremacists to decide what is or isn’t whiteness and how we talk about it I think is a bad idea…
More from the AP blog here on their use of Black/white.
I am sympathetic to Kagan's argument on standing and similarly I understand why Roberts is trying to lower the pressure. In any case this seems to come back to Congress no longer passing legislation and instead relying on executive powers for all political requirements. Not really seeing a solution until primary rules change. Centrists are left unserved presently.
Centrists can go suck a fat one. The primary reason we're in this fascistic mess globally is the centrists' aversion to being inconvenienced for the rights of their fellow people and for the future of the planet.
That's what creates dictatorships, that's what starts world wars, in summary, that's what enables fascists.
Can you give me an example? Some purple states have protected reproductive health in response to the court overturning Roe. My perception is that the primary races are selecting increasingly polarizing candidates who's goal is just notoriety/fundraising over governing. MTG is a prime demonstration of this effect.
Thank you for your reply. What I am trying to articulate is that I see the trend toward extreme candidates cascading through many government systems. The origin being at the legislature in America's circumstance. The legislature holds nominations of judges in it's hands now which is why we are seeing the buck stop at the court. Congress gets to bemoan the fact that the court is responsible because they aren't offering any practicable solutions. Please note, I am not saying the court is without fault. There are certainly ethics rules issues at play and the court composition as it is now is due to the faults of congress in how the nomination process works.
My thought is that if primaries worked differently legislative candidates would run more moderate campaigns and we would see less brinkmanship at the court. Roberts I think is correctly concerned about the perception of the court and is genuinely worried about the last branch of US government losing the respect of the populace. With the decision on Roe v Wade, I think he should be.
Well if the court didn't engage in clearly partisan politics, maybe the liberal justices wouldn't have anything to criticize.
Does he realize how bad it looks when he voices that his problem is criticism and not like, I don't know, taking money from political interests? Or refusing to recuse in cases where there's a relative directly involved?
It is really incredible how far down the drain the SCOTUS has gone in such a short period of time. Not saying it was great before Justice Kennedy retired either, but at least back then it was generally respected.
Why do you think they would've filled her spot when they didn't fill the other one with Merrick Garland? She protected her spot or they would've held it up until Trump.
She could have retired at any time, including right after Obama was elected. The Republicans couldn't have held the spot open for years. It would have become a major election issue.
I'd bet good money McConnell would have tried to find a way/reason to keep it open, look at all the rules making/breaking they did to fill/keep a seat empty close to elections, I'm sure they'd just come up with some other bullshit
I'm sure he would have tried, but we're dealing with massive hypotheticals at this point. Under your argument, we should not have a justice at any point ever step down because McConnell would try to block a nomination. Yes, he would try. Doesn't change the fact that the best move was for her to step down at the beginning of the term.
We should honestly be pushing for justices getting on in years and having health issues to step down at the beginning of presidential terms regardless.
It surprises me that it is possible for capsaicin to kill someone. Maybe it is something else or a combination of things but I await further evidence.
I do like to eat spicy but I top out somewhere around habaneros. It would be good to know if the peppers might kill me. I already think I'm pretty careful with them, but I'll be more so if there's real danger.
Unfortunate for this kid. Best wishes to his family.
This chip has been on the market for literal years at this point and no one has died until now. I'm open to new information but I think it might be a case where the chip formula has changed, or maybe this was a condition they didn't know the child had, or any number of things.
I like spicy things. Sometimes what I enjoy is dangerous for others. I grieve for the child's parents and friends, but am waiting for more information to confirm that it was entirely the chip to blame.
I also think that we should remember that parents should be supervising these things. If my 11-year-old asked to do the challenge, I would've rightfully tried him first on something spicy that's much less spicy than this. I want to know what all this kid has tried before this challenge. If this was his first exposure to spicy things, then I think it's reasonable to be unsurprised. If that's not the case, I want to know.
@readbeanicecream exploding human population a threat to all the mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, oceans, glaciers, crops, forests, and atmosphere on the planet. also to ourselves.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.