Ah yes, another attempt to pretend that the single Supreme Court justice nominated by the former (D) president was blocked for anything other than partisan political reasons and that Trump didn't add the most number of SC justices since Reagan, all of whom were put forward by the totally-not-partisan Federalist Society and one of whom actually cried about how much he loves beer while testifying during a job interview, which is definitely normal and the type of behavior we expect from a judge in the highest court.
Totally not court packing. Just business as usual.
Nope, your recent discovery of partisanship in DC, or the strength of your personal hatred of a justice or two, still does not make their appointment "court packing".
"People often use "court packing" to describe changes to the size of the Supreme Court, but it's better understood as any effort to manipulate the Court's membership for partisan ends. A political party that's engaged in court packing will usually violate norms that govern who is appointed (e.g., only appoint jurists who respect precedent) and how the appointment process works (e.g., no appointments during a presidential election).
"Seen from this perspective, the Barrett appointment is classic court packing. The president nominated a hardline conservative who appears to question major parts of U.S. constitutional law. And the Senate majority changed its procedural rules – invented to deny Merrick Garland a hearing – to ram through the nomination as people were voting."
You siding with the partisan politics of members of a supposedly-neutral court who were put there to make the court partisan, doesn't make it normal.
They "packed" a court with a single justice? That's "packing"? In no other area would you ever consider the addition of a single individual to be "packing" anything. The term "packing" is being misused here as an emotional trigger word to cynically attack the court's legitimacy. That is propaganda, not precision.
Precisely, packing refers to what the cited article explains as the Democrat long term plan to fill the court with liberal justices: "If Democrats win 53 or 54 seats, it's far more likely that Congress will expand the Court."
And you can't be bothered to think before you type. Clearly, those are outliers. They are not anywhere near the norm, and the norm is low and getting lower. Yes, there was a time The NYT was fantastic. I was a long time subscriber. Those glory days are gone.
Don't get distracted by the glitter of such prizes, Don't worry about the past. Worry about who is holding down The Fourth Estate fort. It ain't The Times.
But if you want to side with MSNBC, CNN and Mashable, go ahead. You're on the wrong side of the line. Orwellian is not a good look, no matter how normalized it might be.
Donating capitol that has gained value to a non-profit to then use to pay yourself a salary with causes you to pay more taxes than if you had just realized the gains and skipped the non-profit as cap gains taxes are lower than income taxes for the top bracket.
Turns out the FAA has been stalking people for decades. Can we also add "getting arrested is kidnapping actually" to this list of arbitrary interpretations?
Content moderation and free speech are not mutually exclusive. Absolute free speech is not the only kind of free speech, nor is the definition of "free speech" the same globally.
> So here is a policy that everyone agrees with and increases safety on the platform. And they are not happy. It's such a funny situation.
Not upset, just confused that a free speech absolutist is banning people for exercising the version of free speech that he claims to be protecting.
Some people do not support law enforcement and a large number of people using Mastodon are pro-privacy and anti-surveillance. RPI's cavalier response to their concerns about a former surveillance officer being hired by a company that creates computers is a cause for concern.
If "we" is you, go ahead! You're free to judge whomever you want.
This is a fairly simple issue - a community of people who are pro-privacy and anti-surveillance have concerns about a former surveillance officer working for an organization which creates small, portable, popular computing devices.
If you haven't heard about law enforcement abuses of surveillance, here are some helpful links:
"Body positivity" is not about labeling everything as beautiful but rather not labeling people who may not match traditional standards of beauty as "ugly."
Is this actually how it's practiced? I know this is the professed meaning of the term/movement but when it comes to the implementation it seems to be turning into something much different. Also, in this definition of beauty where do you draw the line for "ugly" or is it now a word without a meaning?
I'm in a lot of these circles and usually it's exactly how it works.
You see a fat person, someone says they're beautiful.
Do you A: call them ugly to make them feel bad
or
B: keep moving.
The basis of body positivity is to help folks have less self hate while being like "wtf dude, don't be a dick" to the people constantly criticizing them.
I don't think body positivity is needed for that, just manners. Is there actually a problem that is being solved by body positivity that can't be solved by just being polite?
Totally not court packing. Just business as usual.