- 0 Posts
- 7 Comments
I’ll let others address the “enshittification” angle but I thought I’d point out that “shareholder value uber allies” is a relatively recent … “innovation” … in economic theory, brought about by failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork and Milton Friedman in the last half of last century:
https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/what-made-chicago-school-so-influential-antitrust-policy
The rethinking of what the boards of companies are supposed to do (from maximize stakeholder value to maximize shareholder value) and how they can operate (from requiring justification to approve mergers to requiring justification to block mergers) really took off with them, and exploded when former union boss Ronald Reagan found “religion” (because Nancy’s pussy was just that good) and ruined the economy for workers.
Lots of other people contributed, including Clinton after he “won” the 1992 election with 40% of the vote due to Perot splitting the Republican vote. His campaign of fiscal conservatism but without less bigotry became the model for the Democratic Party for the next two decades.
Anyway, Biden’s FTC is finally working to help workers again, which might even release the death grip of the Chicago School from our economy. We’ll see after November I guess.
You’re kind of arguing against the foundation of human society. If we’re all required to “do our own research” about things, where does that requirement end? How can I buy food if I have to do my own research on what’s healthy or what’s dangerous? What about my tap water? How can I put gas in my car? Use electricity? A computer? A phone?
Somewhere along the way you have to trust the systems that have been built by the people before us to function, and for people who work in those fields who are experts to use their expertise.
Obviously oversight & verification is also important. It’s important that people earn trust and work to maintain that trust and get booted if they violate that trust.
But it’s foolish to just stop trusting experts out of nowhere. It’s extra foolish to stop trusting experts specifically because they say things you don’t like to hear. As far as I can tell, that’s been the accelerating project of the Republican Party since at least the talk radio explosion following the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. Maybe longer if you go back to Moon landing deniers and their ilk.
Woof there’s a really good chance Kemp will be elected President in '28. Trump will be out of the picture one way or another, and Kemp can pull in the MAGA crowd and the anti Trump crowd in Georgia and probably nationwide.
Hell take a little flak for not “helping” Trump, but I bet they’ll get over it. The only risk he’d face would be low MAGA turnout.
My recollection from the E Jean Carroll case is that there’s a multi part test:
Though each state has its own particular requirements as to what constitutes defamation, generally all of the following elements must be satisfied:
- publication (to someone other than the person who brought the case)
- of a false statement
- of fact (rather than opinion)
- that injures the reputation of the person being defamed (“plaintiff”), and
- is not privileged.
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/evidence-defamation-lawsuit.html
However if a party in a lawsuit pisses off the judge enough, they can receive a default judgment without a trial.
And if former lawyer Giuliani thinks he will find appellate judges who will be fine with his stupid shenanigans and reverse this… He must have leaked more than hair dye down his head. Judges tend to back each other up when it comes to respecting the Court.
For example, I bet contempt findings are reversed VERY rarely.
Honestly with this model of social networking now past its infancy and the most painful growing pains (I think), every entity of any meaningful size should be creating their own Mastodon (and Lemmy) instance. Governments, corporations, non profits, etc.
Validation, message control, etc are crucial to success, and leaving that in the hands of some for profit entity that doesn’t have your interests at heart is a recipe for disaster. So many companies had to decide if they wanted to keep their access to customers on the Bird Site while dealing with people saying the N word and cheering literal Nazis. That wouldn’t be a problem in federated space: just defederate.
The focus on SCOTUS is too myopic. We need Article III reform from the bottom to the top. It should be designed by a non partisan group of lawyers, judges, and advocates from all backgrounds. New judges should be recommended by this group, maybe in chunks (you get 5 prosecutors as judges if we get 5 public defenders as judges).
Ethics rules should apply to SCOTUS Justices.
We need more federal courts. Our courts at all levels are overwhelmed. From what I’ve read and heard, is mostly due to corporations filing lawsuits. So it’s possible this could be fixed by reforming the qualifications to submit lawsuits or to give clerks the ability to reject (or suggest rejection) of lawsuits.
Obviously if we need more courts, we need more judges. Preferably more diverse in background, like public defenders and community advocacy law.
More appellate courts. Obviously more lower courts and judges mean more decisions to appeal and otherwise supervise/police/review. No appellate court in America with the power to issue a national injunction should have only one judge for Christ’s sake. Minimum 3.
A new level of appellate court? Maybe regional nearly-supreme courts? Or maybe subject matter based penultimate courts? Like for criminal justice, white collar crime, immigration, drugs, different civil matters like employment law, discrimination, etc. SCOTUS suffers greatly from having to switch from being experts in different legal realms with every new case. Maybe these new courts could help with that.
AND … expand SCOTUS to match all these new appellate levels. So if we have 15 “regions” or whatever, we need 15 Justices. Preferably an odd number so there won’t be ties.
Xemu: Not Too Much Lead
https://youtu.be/MKTN2OiR2R8