Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
7/10 Americans are aware / woke.
The owners, "Stop being aware, go back to being a cog in the machine. Stop reading the founders intent that we can overthrow them. That's against the law and the law is what we will use to enforce our ideologies upon you."
The "war against woke" is a war against awareness.
I would say it’s a war against knowledge and critical thinking. Those two things threaten their control and reasoning. Why else fear books or competing ideologies?
It’s one thing for the deer to see headlights coming at it. It’s another for it to know what it means and what it should do.
I think that is what stembolts is saying. Awareness is borne from knowledge and critical thinking.
Too bad the system is designed by the founders so that 70% of the people are guaranteed in perpetuity to always have less than 50% of the power, and thus never get what they want.
This was done to keep slavery in place.
Is bribery and corruption an ideology?
Yes. It's called Cronyism.
Then put me in with the 7 out of 10 Americans.
It's called Cronyism.
Funny way to spell "conservatism"
Have you seen the interest rates on motorhomes nowadays?
Alternate headline: 3/10 Americans are living in fantasy land.
I would suggest 3/10 share their extremists ideology. (Well, the ideology of the majority,)
“Warriors are fine. Nerf warlocks.” -Me, a mage in Vanilla WoW.
Non-politicized decisions are wacky, the Sackler decision had Gorsuch and Jackson in the majority and Kavanaugh and Sotomayor in the minority.
"Coincidentally," the abortion and gun rulings are all exactly the same 6-3 teams based on who appointed them.
It's pretty much settled fact that this Supreme Court puts ideology over impartiality.
They definitely do on the most important issues, however they continue to be impartial on the issues that don't hit mainstream media (Fox Business Network)
The Sackler decision makes a lot more sense when you see it as the court disagreeing with how to protect the wealthy elite from future cases. Either the novel method here, being allowed to make an agreement that forecloses any future problems; or the traditional method of burying the other side in lawyers until you die.
3 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices agree!
3 out of 10 Americans are lying 🤣
3 out of 10 believe impartiality means agreeing with their ideology.
Ideology of “I get mine, you get shit”. Ideology of “I get what I want because I’m on this bench”. Ideology of “what can you do for me?”.
Illegitimate court. Every single ruling by them should be overturned and every citizen should ignore them.
Go read the Heritage Foundation's founding documents. Literally says in black and white that the way to shift the landscape in your favor is by getting your people on the SC.
3/10 are hopelessly naive
Maybe they believe that the supreme court is more influenced by money than ideology?
That seems low.
It's because Republicans are skewing the numbers. 84% of Democrats and 73% of Independents understand the Supreme Court is a joke.
I bet a chunk of those republicans are mad that the court is "too liberal"
Republicans are the worst
The other three aren't paying attention.
I'm curious how many of those 7/10 think it's a good thing
I don’t think it. I KNOW it.
But how many of them think that's a bad thing?
No idea why they'd think that...
pretty sure 3 out 10 americans believe they've met a demon or space alien
Democracy requires its 3 pillars - the Judicial, the Press and the Political - to be independent.
In the US all three are tied, some even Constitutionally.
It's thus not surprised that the country only ever got close to being governed for the Many rather than the Few at times when other Civil Society movements (such as Unions) were strong and healthy. Certainly that's not the case nowadays, not even close.
Theres no such thing as an impartial person.
I like pineapple on my pizza. Therefore, I rule that everyone else must always eat pineapple on their pizza. The Constitution doesn't say anything about pizza, so this is totally okay and exactly what the "Founders" wanted.
This is not, and never was, merely an issue of "being an impartial person"... but believing that you can and should be able to force your own partial views onto others - sometimes under threat of state violence - even when those views directly contradict the obvious letter and intent of our Constitution.
"Ideology over impartiality" means "they rule by fiat, rather than by any principle of justice."
Its not believing they can, they just can.
This is true. It can be strived for, though, and there are strategies to overcome bias, increase impartiality, and identify bias in others. If the United States supreme court (and really its legal system too) had any integrity, it would champion doing so.
If the United States supreme court (and really its legal system too) had any integrity, it would champion doing so.
I think most of the liberal justice would argue the court is and that's the problem. The keystone of Originalist philosophy is that judges should be impartial and leave policy decisions to the people (except when the constitution prohibits restrictions). To do that they are supposed to follow the original meaning, not the contemporary understanding.
In Living Constitutionalism judges are expected to apply their own personal standards and worry about the practical reproductions (that they for see).
I think the best strategy is to assume the worst. Assume that theyll take whatever bribes they can get away with, empower their political party however they can, seek to harm groups theyre hateful towards, etc. Restrict what they can get away with, do not permit any self accountability, keep the roster changing so corrupt roots cant go deep.
The difference is at least some of us recognize our bias and work to mitigate its effects while the rest of us don't even know there's supposed to be a difference.
For anyone interested in the changes in the Court here's a video of two of the former justices explaining the different perspectives between living constitutionalism and originalism. Right now there's a shift from one to the other. Just like there was a shift around the 50s.