any president can

oh nooo a warning whatever will they do

you can pack the court at anytime Joe, how about now

Locking comments, this has gone off the rails and devolved into hurling insults

There is no need to be tolerant towards the intolerant. If someone says they want to do some ethnic cleansing, that’s not exactly a nice gesture and pushing back against that message is both cool and good.

I don’t want to discount the findings too harshly, because I believe that democrats have a ton of issues with their voters in general and can only go on promising everything but delivering nothing for so long before people wisen up, but I do want to just gently remind everyone how accurate polling was in the 2016 and 2020 election cycles and its general decline among the population as a way to understand how people vote. Polling groups have not adapted to the times and frequently demand far too much out of a population which is overburdened and simply not interested in engaging with pollsters through archaic mediums and conventional means of identifying who is eligible to be polled are not applicable to a modern populace.

Well stated. Once again, thank you for all the hard work you do around here!

So I’m not familiar with why that particular judge was criticized, but you’ll note that the entirety of arguments and discussion surround the brief and response letters which were submitted to the supreme court. It’s possible that Cannon was stepping outside what was presented, which would warrant criticism. The supreme court never steps outside what is presented, except when it’s necessary to understand what is being presented - for example they may call upon other legal text or rulings in order to fully frame what is and is not in scope with regards to the presented case or to understand precisely what a particular lawyer is arguing for or against.

But I also think that the fact that the supreme court is the final court which gets to have say on a matter lends them to pontificate in depth about some issues that other courts may not be given latitude to do the same because it may address issues which are currently working their way through the court system or may be called upon as a matter of jurisprudence in the future. The entire text of every decision they make can have consequences on lower courts and understanding the limits and the spirit of law they weigh in on and as of such it’s important to fully understand the exact claims being made and appropriately scope where the response lies and whether certain issues could or should be weighed in upon during that case.

That is super common in supreme court cases. They really like to explore the legality of each potential argument in a lot of depth.

A long shot in what way? That you think they’ll find in favor of trump?

Biden has already made it clear he has no intention of packing the court, I cannot imagine for the life of me that this will change

Political history, especially in the house of representatives, paints a vivid picture of long term Republican thinking. Their ability to canvas and take over local government as well as mobilize their voting based is absolutely unrivaled by any other political party in the US. Think tanks from the right have been publishing political playbooks for decades which outline their thinking and planning on both short and long term issues and this shouldn’t be dismissed as not thinking ahead.

A compulsive liar will lie about anything, stop listening entirely

You have a point that jobs should match the employees and generally speaking men are larger and more muscular than women, but you do know power tools exist, right? You also realize that output is not purely about physical capacity but also mental and emotional buy in? And that construction isn’t purely about nailing boards in place but doing things in the right order at the right time with the right tools and planning appropriately?

I think you’re making too many broad generalizations here and over stating the importance of gender on job performance. I think there are more salient points to be made about job seeking strategies between men and women and how that should affect hiring strategies and gender disparities in certain fields. Women tend to prefer more work flexibility (malleable hours, flexible vacation time, ability to make time to pick up kids from school etc) than men and women tend to be more risk averse than men and this is reflected in the jobs they choose and are recruited for.

My dude Scalia died years ago lmao

Look I hate the guy plenty, too, but this isn’t exactly solid ground to start a discussion with. The article provides plenty of ground to talk about linguistics or at the very least not just hate on him. I think it’s important to point out that he was not just a deplorable person, but that the very reasoning he used to argue in favor of his points was not based in reality.

This is quickly devolving into fighting, locking this up.

This isn’t about sides, and I’m not sure how do communicate that to you. Our documents talk in depth about how this is a public space and we’re asking for a certain kind of behavior to your fellow user. I simply do not care if you two disagree - I care about how you disagree.

You’re pulling up other things I’ve said in order to start a fight with me when I’m asking for your help to understand what I’m missing. I cannot find any way to interpret this with good faith. Why are you fighting me instead of helping me to understand the bias you abuse me of? You’re treating me as someone attacking you even when I directly ask for your help and I just can’t see how anything else I’m going to say will change that. I’m timing you out for 2 weeks. If you come back and continue to be confrontational it’s likely to be permanent. If you don’t understand why I’m timing you out, you probably shouldn’t bother coming back, because I’m exhausted trying to explain what we’re trying to do here and it might just not be the space for you.

Upstream lemmy UI. I’m not sure if an email gets sent if the user registers with one. The modlog is public, so it’s visible there, but having a notification or some kind of UI element would be vastly preferred.

I have Big Brother admin stalking my comments to see if I follow the dictates of civility. Very cool.

I really don’t have the time to be stalking anyone. I’m here because your comments were reported, yet again. For the record, I didn’t ban you the last time, but I will share your feedback on a limited UI. I wish I was in control of that, but it’s unfortunately a limitation of lemmy- the modlog is public, by the way, so if you find yourself banned you can check it to see why.

The reason I’m here is because this is the fourth time I’ve been involved in chats with moderators about what to do with you. Help me out here, because many people don’t seem to like the way you’re behaving.

Here’s how I see your interactions:

You have a strong, and frankly from what I’ve seen often correct viewpoint and you like to chime in with it. This in and of itself is not a bad thing, but the way that you’re interacting with other users really just isn’t particularly nice. You call them names, you escalate, you assume that they’re out to get you or that if they don’t share your beliefs that they are less than you. I’m not particularly interested in playing the “who started it” game, because you didn’t try to diffuse the situation and that would go a long way demonstrating good faith. The moderator here did, they explicitly checked out after things got heated. They told you to have a nice day, and you still had to come back swinging.

What am I missing here? What am I misinterpreting?

You were banned for 7 days for being unnecessarily confrontational and you come back and immediately pick another fight with a moderator? Why do you treat no one here with good faith? This isn’t a place to assume malicious negative intent. If you think the person is mislead speak your peace without insulting them, or even better try to educate them. If you can’t do either, this isn’t the space for you.