What you’re saying isn’t necessarily wrong. You’re just piling a bunch of unrelated issues on top of what I said, gerrymandering, racism, politics, public policy, what the law should be, and so on.
None of that was the question. Those are separate discussions.
What I object to are blanket statements wrapped in propaganda. The original claim was grossly inaccurate. Federal appeals courts still make binding decisions within their own circuits. That’s how the federal judiciary has always functioned.
As I said, whether the Supreme Court made the right decision in the first place is an entirely different debate.
Honestly, I don’t understand what any of the points you raised have to do with what I was actually saying. My comment was narrowly focused on correcting a factual claim.
This is exactly what frustrates me about social media. People make wildly inaccurate statements based on ignorance, and they get repeated as if they’re true. That’s why I commented, to clarify the issue.
Some of what you said contains a kernel of truth, but it’s mixed with a lot of ideological framing that only muddies the discussion. It doesn’t address my point, and it makes an already complicated topic even more confusing.
I was saying even if you were technically correct, the original poster was implying that now the supreme court is the only one who can make nationwide policy on stopping illegal nationwide federal actions and your reply implied normal legitimacy and remedy powers, as though it’s not that bad.
and if you only meant to provide a narrow technical correction, then you shouldn’t consider my reply as criticism, but rather my perspective on the broader perspective.
i wasn’t calling you racist, or disagreeing on ideological grounds, i was saying that your limited technical answer so grossly missed the larger situation that it undercut the actual legitimacy crisis that does and should exist for this branch. it is not business as usual, some of the conditions for these detainees are terrible and reminiscent of nazi-regime treatment of others, and the fact that nothing can be done about it at any federal level except at 1 court that refuses to hear most things and is extremely slow to hear matters means that it’s not the same situation as it once was
this is not ideological framing that muddies the waters. your narrow technical analysis nit-picking at the literal meaning and missing the implication is unintentionally or intentionally implying there’s still some legitimate functional system that is working correctly instead of something completely broken.
it’s not muddying the discussion to point on the bigger perspective. Your thinking is similar to a statement like “Many black people frequently broke Jim Crow laws and thus were criminals.” Yes, that might be technically true, but saying it like that with no contextualization unintentionally suggests things in a problematic manner. A literal denotative view of words and their meaning and a technical analysis that misses things does not mean someone pointing out the larger perspective is clouding the situation and there is a risk in someone using erudition to distract from the fact of how horrible things are, and that’s what you were doing, possibly unintentionally. I can tell you’re smart, but a technical correction of something like that risks implying there’s no crisis of legitimacy.
The original comment insinuated that only the Supreme Court has influence over national policy. Once again, that is factually incorrect.
Every federal court has authority within its own jurisdiction. If a federal court rules against an executive policy, that ruling has legal effect within that jurisdiction. Those decisions can also serve as persuasive precedent in other jurisdictions, even though they are not binding outside their circuit.
The difference is that Supreme Court decisions are binding nationwide. That is part of the separation of powers and serves as a check on the executive and legislative branches.
The other examples you’re bringing up are unrelated to what I was actually saying. They don’t address the point I made.
I’m fully aware of the current state of the country and the ways the Supreme Court has shaped policy over the years.
I have no idea what the Jim Crow example was supposed to demonstrate, because it has nothing to do with the point under discussion.
The Supreme Court does not simply make policy on a whim. It decides cases based on the law, including the Constitution, federal statutes, and other applicable legal authority. When those decisions invalidate or uphold executive actions, they can have nationwide policy consequences.
I understand the implications of that. Those consequences can be beneficial or detrimental.
I’m not downplaying the current state of the country. I understand the concerns being raised.
What I corrected was a factually incorrect claim. There was no emotional context, political bias, or ideological argument in my comment. I simply corrected an inaccurate statement.
You’re adding a number of unrelated examples and arguments that don’t address my original point. I understand what you’re trying to say, and on some level I even agree with you. But it still has nothing to do with what I originally said.
Is the current state of the law that a federal appellate judge can say “Okay, for this area of the country, I am issuing an injunction that ICE can no longer operate until they submit a report to a court monitor explaining corrective actions they will take and if anyone violates that order I will have us marshals arrest them?”
because i am under the impression that the new decision is they can’t do that. that it would be challenged immediately, the sc would against say you can’t issue blanket injunctions that impact federal policy, and nothing would occur.
i believe my unrelated examples were related, so we disagree. this isn’t a court briefing, this is the internet: unemotional and narrow language has no place here.
First, your hypothetical has very little to do with how federal appellate courts actually function or the kinds of injunctions they issue. If you’re going to discuss the scope of judicial authority, it helps to use examples that reflect how the courts actually operate.
Second, precision is the foundation of legal discussion. The fact that this is the internet doesn’t somehow make factual accuracy or precise language irrelevant. My comment was a narrow factual correction to an incorrect statement about the judiciary. Nothing more.
Third, I’m not interested in taking the conversation where you’re trying to take it. You seem to want a broad, emotionally charged debate about nationwide immigration policy. That’s a perfectly separate discussion, but it isn’t the one I was having.
Finally, I have no issue with emotion. Passion has its place. What it doesn’t do is change how the law works. If the discussion is about the legal authority of federal courts, then the answer depends on legal precision, not rhetorical intensity.
Second, precision is the foundation of legal discussion. The fact that this is the internet doesn’t somehow make factual accuracy or precise language irrelevant. My comment was a narrow factual correction to an incorrect statement about the judiciary. Nothing more.
But this isn’t being argued in a court with narrow technical rules and extremely precise procedural requirements, it was being argued online… You’re looking at the argument from the perspective of a narrow technical argument from a procedural court perspective, I am looking it how it realistically affects people in their actual lives… which is what makes sense… for an internet discussion.
You’re clearly a lawyer or a judge or something, and it wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve filed your fair share of motions that weren’t just in a local court, but you’re still wrong on this and I’m not conceding. Yes, my responses would not be appropriate for a court filing… but also, they make sense outside of that situation.
Dude, don’t you realize you have no chance with this argument? Mechoman is the chair of the Nebraska Board of Tourism! They’re the genius mind behind those award-winning slogans we all remember, like *“Nebraska: We’re relevant, damnit!” and “Nebraska: Don’t scratch it, that will just make it worse!”.
Seriously though, if you wanna get stuck in with them I can really recommend it - poking holes in their arguments is like bubble wrap for the rhetorical soul - but I just wanted to chime in and mention that you’ve brought some truly excellent points, and to make sure nobody’s taking this goober too seriously.
There’s a lot of stuff that either sucks or is downright horrible in the world right now, honestly even more than there was last month, and it’s really not worth letting some people add their BS to that burden.
Anyways, you seem cool. I hope your day/night/timezone is going and continues to go well for you (and I hope you don’t take the nebraska jokes personally, they’re a whole other thing I’m riffing on with them in another thread).
You don’t have to concede anything. No one ever does anyway.
The fact that this is a courtroom or a Lemmy comment thread doesn’t somehow negate the accuracy of the language being used. The context doesn’t change what the words mean.
And frankly, there’s nothing for you to concede. You’ve already admitted that I’m right and you’re wrong. Your only remaining argument is apparently that because this isn’t a courtroom, I’m somehow wrong—which is some impressive mental gymnastics.
“You’re right in the only place where it matters, therefore you’re wrong here.”
Okay. You said some stupid-ass shit, got called out on it, couldn’t come up with a response for weeks, and what you’ve finally come up with is still bullshit.
Context does change what words mean. sudo rm -rf / means one thing in a terminal and means nothing in a legal brief.
You’re narrow technical view of one aspect of law, missing the bigger picture, is an egregious instance of a lack of context implying things.
For example, if someone said “Hitler made various economic improvements that were helpful” and that’s it, the person is likely a racist evil piece of shit, especially if it’s on a neo-Nazi forum. I suppose technically in a history paper the statement in and of itself would not be egregious or false.
In the same way, if someone is making the case appellate courts are still binding on lower courts, without mentioning that appellate courts not being able to create nationwide injunctions or impact nationwide federal policy when the Supreme Court is slow as molasses and cherry picks what to hear, and when humanitarian violations are going on that are truly evil, that person is either malevolent, lacking rhetorical skills, or technically true but writing something that’s problematic for the context.
Look, I admire your 115 IQ and I find your arrogance alluring, and perhaps if we were in the same area and you were at least decent looking and gay or bi or bored, I’d let you fuck me once or twice because sometimes I like dumb guys who think they are smarter than they are, but even you have to understand why context does impact meaning. I have not admitted to being wrong.
It’s not to say that a lack of additional text makes an analysis bad, but using court language on an Internet forum doesn’t make you right, just like an economist saying on an Internet forum with no context how “Slavery was beneficial for GDP during 1784” is wrong and stupid.
Okay — so we have an appeal to my “IQ” — an argument that context doesn’t matter — an offer for me to have sex with you, but only if I’m gay or bi — and a criticism of how our law works.
So — essentially — the ramblings of an idiot.
I have made my case — I stated my points plainly — and I have provided the relevant information without any emotional context attached to it. If you don’t like the information — you are perfectly free to continue not liking it.
What you’re saying isn’t necessarily wrong. You’re just piling a bunch of unrelated issues on top of what I said, gerrymandering, racism, politics, public policy, what the law should be, and so on.
None of that was the question. Those are separate discussions.
What I object to are blanket statements wrapped in propaganda. The original claim was grossly inaccurate. Federal appeals courts still make binding decisions within their own circuits. That’s how the federal judiciary has always functioned.
As I said, whether the Supreme Court made the right decision in the first place is an entirely different debate.
Honestly, I don’t understand what any of the points you raised have to do with what I was actually saying. My comment was narrowly focused on correcting a factual claim.
This is exactly what frustrates me about social media. People make wildly inaccurate statements based on ignorance, and they get repeated as if they’re true. That’s why I commented, to clarify the issue.
Some of what you said contains a kernel of truth, but it’s mixed with a lot of ideological framing that only muddies the discussion. It doesn’t address my point, and it makes an already complicated topic even more confusing.
I was saying even if you were technically correct, the original poster was implying that now the supreme court is the only one who can make nationwide policy on stopping illegal nationwide federal actions and your reply implied normal legitimacy and remedy powers, as though it’s not that bad.
and if you only meant to provide a narrow technical correction, then you shouldn’t consider my reply as criticism, but rather my perspective on the broader perspective.
i wasn’t calling you racist, or disagreeing on ideological grounds, i was saying that your limited technical answer so grossly missed the larger situation that it undercut the actual legitimacy crisis that does and should exist for this branch. it is not business as usual, some of the conditions for these detainees are terrible and reminiscent of nazi-regime treatment of others, and the fact that nothing can be done about it at any federal level except at 1 court that refuses to hear most things and is extremely slow to hear matters means that it’s not the same situation as it once was
this is not ideological framing that muddies the waters. your narrow technical analysis nit-picking at the literal meaning and missing the implication is unintentionally or intentionally implying there’s still some legitimate functional system that is working correctly instead of something completely broken.
it’s not muddying the discussion to point on the bigger perspective. Your thinking is similar to a statement like “Many black people frequently broke Jim Crow laws and thus were criminals.” Yes, that might be technically true, but saying it like that with no contextualization unintentionally suggests things in a problematic manner. A literal denotative view of words and their meaning and a technical analysis that misses things does not mean someone pointing out the larger perspective is clouding the situation and there is a risk in someone using erudition to distract from the fact of how horrible things are, and that’s what you were doing, possibly unintentionally. I can tell you’re smart, but a technical correction of something like that risks implying there’s no crisis of legitimacy.
The original comment insinuated that only the Supreme Court has influence over national policy. Once again, that is factually incorrect.
Every federal court has authority within its own jurisdiction. If a federal court rules against an executive policy, that ruling has legal effect within that jurisdiction. Those decisions can also serve as persuasive precedent in other jurisdictions, even though they are not binding outside their circuit.
The difference is that Supreme Court decisions are binding nationwide. That is part of the separation of powers and serves as a check on the executive and legislative branches.
The other examples you’re bringing up are unrelated to what I was actually saying. They don’t address the point I made.
I’m fully aware of the current state of the country and the ways the Supreme Court has shaped policy over the years.
I have no idea what the Jim Crow example was supposed to demonstrate, because it has nothing to do with the point under discussion.
The Supreme Court does not simply make policy on a whim. It decides cases based on the law, including the Constitution, federal statutes, and other applicable legal authority. When those decisions invalidate or uphold executive actions, they can have nationwide policy consequences.
I understand the implications of that. Those consequences can be beneficial or detrimental.
I’m not downplaying the current state of the country. I understand the concerns being raised.
What I corrected was a factually incorrect claim. There was no emotional context, political bias, or ideological argument in my comment. I simply corrected an inaccurate statement.
You’re adding a number of unrelated examples and arguments that don’t address my original point. I understand what you’re trying to say, and on some level I even agree with you. But it still has nothing to do with what I originally said.
I don’t know the answer to the following:
Is the current state of the law that a federal appellate judge can say “Okay, for this area of the country, I am issuing an injunction that ICE can no longer operate until they submit a report to a court monitor explaining corrective actions they will take and if anyone violates that order I will have us marshals arrest them?”
because i am under the impression that the new decision is they can’t do that. that it would be challenged immediately, the sc would against say you can’t issue blanket injunctions that impact federal policy, and nothing would occur.
i believe my unrelated examples were related, so we disagree. this isn’t a court briefing, this is the internet: unemotional and narrow language has no place here.
You’re arguing a different issue than I am.
First, your hypothetical has very little to do with how federal appellate courts actually function or the kinds of injunctions they issue. If you’re going to discuss the scope of judicial authority, it helps to use examples that reflect how the courts actually operate.
Second, precision is the foundation of legal discussion. The fact that this is the internet doesn’t somehow make factual accuracy or precise language irrelevant. My comment was a narrow factual correction to an incorrect statement about the judiciary. Nothing more.
Third, I’m not interested in taking the conversation where you’re trying to take it. You seem to want a broad, emotionally charged debate about nationwide immigration policy. That’s a perfectly separate discussion, but it isn’t the one I was having.
Finally, I have no issue with emotion. Passion has its place. What it doesn’t do is change how the law works. If the discussion is about the legal authority of federal courts, then the answer depends on legal precision, not rhetorical intensity.
But this isn’t being argued in a court with narrow technical rules and extremely precise procedural requirements, it was being argued online… You’re looking at the argument from the perspective of a narrow technical argument from a procedural court perspective, I am looking it how it realistically affects people in their actual lives… which is what makes sense… for an internet discussion.
You’re clearly a lawyer or a judge or something, and it wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve filed your fair share of motions that weren’t just in a local court, but you’re still wrong on this and I’m not conceding. Yes, my responses would not be appropriate for a court filing… but also, they make sense outside of that situation.
Dude, don’t you realize you have no chance with this argument? Mechoman is the chair of the Nebraska Board of Tourism! They’re the genius mind behind those award-winning slogans we all remember, like *“Nebraska: We’re relevant, damnit!” and “Nebraska: Don’t scratch it, that will just make it worse!”.
Seriously though, if you wanna get stuck in with them I can really recommend it - poking holes in their arguments is like bubble wrap for the rhetorical soul - but I just wanted to chime in and mention that you’ve brought some truly excellent points, and to make sure nobody’s taking this goober too seriously.
There’s a lot of stuff that either sucks or is downright horrible in the world right now, honestly even more than there was last month, and it’s really not worth letting some people add their BS to that burden.
Anyways, you seem cool. I hope your day/night/timezone is going and continues to go well for you (and I hope you don’t take the nebraska jokes personally, they’re a whole other thing I’m riffing on with them in another thread).
Glad tidings and peace.
You don’t have to concede anything. No one ever does anyway.
The fact that this is a courtroom or a Lemmy comment thread doesn’t somehow negate the accuracy of the language being used. The context doesn’t change what the words mean.
And frankly, there’s nothing for you to concede. You’ve already admitted that I’m right and you’re wrong. Your only remaining argument is apparently that because this isn’t a courtroom, I’m somehow wrong—which is some impressive mental gymnastics.
“You’re right in the only place where it matters, therefore you’re wrong here.”
Okay. You said some stupid-ass shit, got called out on it, couldn’t come up with a response for weeks, and what you’ve finally come up with is still bullshit.
Don’t worry about it. I got you.
Thanks for admitting you were wrong.
Context does change what words mean. sudo rm -rf / means one thing in a terminal and means nothing in a legal brief.
You’re narrow technical view of one aspect of law, missing the bigger picture, is an egregious instance of a lack of context implying things.
For example, if someone said “Hitler made various economic improvements that were helpful” and that’s it, the person is likely a racist evil piece of shit, especially if it’s on a neo-Nazi forum. I suppose technically in a history paper the statement in and of itself would not be egregious or false.
In the same way, if someone is making the case appellate courts are still binding on lower courts, without mentioning that appellate courts not being able to create nationwide injunctions or impact nationwide federal policy when the Supreme Court is slow as molasses and cherry picks what to hear, and when humanitarian violations are going on that are truly evil, that person is either malevolent, lacking rhetorical skills, or technically true but writing something that’s problematic for the context.
Look, I admire your 115 IQ and I find your arrogance alluring, and perhaps if we were in the same area and you were at least decent looking and gay or bi or bored, I’d let you fuck me once or twice because sometimes I like dumb guys who think they are smarter than they are, but even you have to understand why context does impact meaning. I have not admitted to being wrong.
It’s not to say that a lack of additional text makes an analysis bad, but using court language on an Internet forum doesn’t make you right, just like an economist saying on an Internet forum with no context how “Slavery was beneficial for GDP during 1784” is wrong and stupid.
Nice Em Dash, by the way.
Okay — so we have an appeal to my “IQ” — an argument that context doesn’t matter — an offer for me to have sex with you, but only if I’m gay or bi — and a criticism of how our law works.
So — essentially — the ramblings of an idiot.
I have made my case — I stated my points plainly — and I have provided the relevant information without any emotional context attached to it. If you don’t like the information — you are perfectly free to continue not liking it.
I’m done with your dumb ass — good day.