• 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle













  • “The Court’s first overreach in this case is deciding it at all. Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must have standing to challenge a government action. And that requires a personal stake—an injury in fact. We do not al-low plaintiffs to bring suit just because they oppose a policy.
    Neither do we allow plaintiffs to rely on injuries suffered by others. Those rules may sound technical, but they enforce “fundamental limits on federal judicial power.” Allen v.
    Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750 (1984). They keep courts acting like courts. Or stated the other way around, they prevent courts from acting like this Court does today. The plaintiffs in this case are six States that have no personal stake in the Secretary’s loan forgiveness plan. They are classic ide-ological plaintiffs: They think the plan a very bad idea, but they are no worse off because the Secretary differs. In giv-ing those States a forum—in adjudicating their complaint— the Court forgets its proper role. The Court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes, rather than of cases and controversies.”

    They claimed they had standing. All the liberal justices disagree. This was a partisan lawsuit from the beginning and conservative activist judges on the SCOTUS are legislating from the bench with this ruling and ignoring decades of standing precedent.


  • No, that argument is a complete lie. Technology is why we have a higher standard of living. Technological advancements have taken place in communist countries. They experience the same increases of quality of living as capitalist countries. This proves that argument false. Capitalism isn’t responsible for technology. That’s just wealthy people pushing a narrative to protect the system that consolidates wealth in their hands. Consolidated wealth at the top of the economic ladder is a well known and documented side effect of capitalism. That’s why capitalism requires strong regulations, not free market dogma.





  • I oppose your reactionary, thoughtless response. You think that attempts to silence them is righteous. I think you’re every bit as misled and confused as they are.

    And fuck you for your assumptions about my race and gender as if they’re at all relevant to the support of free speech.

    You’re just like those people you despise. You make ignorant assumptions, assume righteousness, and refuse to have open discussion. You’re using the EXACT SAME in-group out-group dynamics that are toxic as fuck.

    When you find yourself in opposition to the positions held by the ACLU, you’re probably fucking wrong.


  • There’s a never ending sea of people like you who just make assumptions about others. You know fucking nothing about me and have already dismissed my position in favor of free speech because you’re so incredibly biased and not open to conversation. It’s not surprising that someone so opposed to any opinions contrary to their narrative is opposed to free speech.