David EilersDec 10, 2024
MissConstrue

Scientific American delivers a scathing article about the theologists holding the majority in the US Supreme Court. It’s so good, and so tightly written, that it’s difficult to pull an excerpt without wanting to also include the lead in and follow up. I’ll tempt you with some opening paragraphs, but the article is brilliant and deserves to be read.

“In five instances, Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion confused nitrogen oxide, a pollutant that contributes to ozone formation, with nitrous oxide, better known as laughing gas.

You can’t make this stuff up. This repeated mistake in the 5–4 decision exemplifies a high court not just indifferent to facts but contemptuous of them.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-supreme-courts-contempt-for-facts-is-a-betrayal-of-justice/

#supremecourt #ScientificAmerican #corruption #failingempire

The Supreme Court’s Contempt for Facts Is a Betrayal of Justice

The Supreme Court majority’s recent decisions about homelessness, public health and regulatory power, among others, undermine the role of evidence, expertise and honesty in American democracy

Scientific American
Dec 9, 2024 at 5:12pmWeb
Show threadRiaResistsDec 9, 2024
@MissConstrue the entire conservative population’s contempt for facts not only betrays justice & betrays every religious they claim to believe, too.
Show threadAndreas KDec 9, 2024

@MissConstrue 🤦‍♂️ You are just now realizing that the USA has this beautiful part called the “Bible Belt”?

And yes, that Theocracy is in the finishing stages of turning the whole of the USA into a Theocracy, very much like the good old Iran, just with a James King Bible instead of the Koran as its governing constitution.

You reached the point where the more “forward-thinking” GOP are considering how to remove the franchise from females.

Or was that “backward-thinking”?

Show threadMissConstrueDec 9, 2024

@yacc143 Oh no darlin', I am in the very buckle of the bible belt. I'm a Leftist in the rural part of the Texas prairie land. I'm a tattooed, black-wearing neopagan looking Lebanese woman with a trans daughter in the very heart of the new confederacy. I have long been aware of what the prosperity gospel people are up to.

I don't think the entire country is likely to fall to theocracy, although I think some regions may, albeit temporarily. The thing is, they're really loud and so people think there's a lot of them. There really aren't. We're not outnumbered. But we have been outplayed. Dems keep acting like the GOP is a political party and not an existential threat to life.

Show threadobscurestarDec 10, 2024
@MissConstrue @yacc143 Thanks for being awesome!
Show threadMossyRuaDec 9, 2024
@MissConstrue Could it be… they don’t understand their assignments?
Show threadarceuthobiumDec 10, 2024
@Mossyrua @MissConstrue will this be on the test? No? Then why should I learn it?
Show threadNKTDec 10, 2024
@Mossyrua @MissConstrue Sadly, they've already been told the answer, and the conclusion to reach.
Show threadDmitry BorodaenkoDec 9, 2024

@MissConstrue #ScientificAmerican editor in chief #LauraHelmuth is a national treasure. It's worth watching what #Springer does with it now that they forced Helmuth to resign, but I am very happy to see that the magazine continues to deserve my ongoing subscription.¹

https://mastodon.circle.lt/@dmitry/113495448863042696

¹ Unlike so many other publications that have badly disappointed me in the past few years #MotherJones #TheAtlantic #WashingtonPost

Dmitry Borodaenko (@[email protected])

@[email protected] This (forcing her to resign) is a fucking travesty. Laura Helmuth did an amazing job at Scientific American, she's the reason the magazine kept getting better while mainstream press continued its slide into an ethically challenged shithouse. SciAm is going to lose readers over this.

Circle of Light
Show threadCodeByJeffDec 9, 2024

@MissConstrue "This repeated mistake in the 5–4 decision exemplifies a high court not just indifferent to facts but contemptuous of them."

Does it? Or does it just mean he's mixing up two similar words, but understands the underlying concept?

I read through the linked articles; I think the second

Show threadarceuthobiumDec 10, 2024
@codebyjeff @MissConstrue an error with the full force of law.
Show threadvolkrisDec 11, 2024

@codebyjeff well the key is to realize what the job of the Court actually IS.

The Supreme Court is not there to make scientific judgments. It rules on law, not scientific fact. It has neither the expertise nor the authority to wade into scientific questions.

This example really emphasizes exactly that.

So yeah, he's mixing up similar words, but it doesn't actually matter to their ruling. It's a matter beside the question actually before them.

In other words, because of how the Court actual functions, they don't address the underlying concept in the first place.

Far too many people don't understand matters of civics as in the role of their own Supreme Court.

@MissConstrue

Show threadJune BlenderDec 9, 2024
@MissConstrue Great article. The best coverage of the Supreme Court is Law Dork, Chris Geidner's daily updates on state and federal law. Nerdy enough for lawyers. Clear enough for the rest of us.
https://www.lawdork.com/p/scotus-is-going-into-july-destroying
SCOTUS is going into July, destroying executive agency powers along the way

In SEC and EPA decisions, the conservatives are on a "power grab," as Justice Sotomayor told us in dissent. Also: We got the EMTALA disposition.

Law Dork
Show threadMemphisDaPlaya 🎲🎲Dec 9, 2024

@MissConstrue

It's the only reason I go to the dentist. 😅

Show thread-rbDec 10, 2024
@MissConstrue wow! 🔥 🔥
Show threadmav Dec 10, 2024
@MissConstrue
Considering that in the five or so months since this article was published, they shitcanned their managing editor for despairing about the election, I wouldn't expect to see this sort of thing from them anymore
Show threadMakanaBoyDec 10, 2024
@MissConstrue It's amazing how SCOTUS views itself as originalist but randomly applies that concept to ideals that align with their worldview.
Show threadJanisDec 10, 2024

@MissConstrue

American English needs a verb for this expression of contempt through being deliberately "wrong," as in mispronouncing the Vice President's first name. Deadnaming and misgendering are big ones. (It might also be helpful to have a name for the line when a number of repetitions of the error makes the error no longer an error.)

If I make it up, it won't take. Who in language academia has the clout and can build something sticky with Latin bits?

Show threadarceuthobiumDec 10, 2024
@janisf @MissConstrue the term is “slur.”
Show threadJanisDec 10, 2024

@theothersimo @MissConstrue Well, they grabbed that definition and stomped on it, too. You're right, but "slur" has come to include any mud slung, where the sloppy elision is exactly what it's *supposed* to mean. I've found it an impossible haul from where I am to try to fight for the definitions of words. They broke "woke" pretty well. I'm not sure we'll get anywhere if we aren't coming up with fresh, shiny, newer, maybe sharper and hopefully more durable....

This is called a "slog," right?

Show thread3bomcDec 10, 2024
@MissConstrue wait to see what a Trump presidency will do to bring SCOTUS even more to the right!
SCOTUS is a fundamental political battleground now, the recent case of invalidated Romanian elections shows the importance to control this "unbiased" agency.
Show threadKarl AuerbachDec 10, 2024

@MissConstrue I kinda wish people would stop focusing on the kind of SCOTUS judge verbal stumbles of the kind we all make and focus instead on the way that those so-called "justices" have shredded our Constitution, ethics, and impartial justice.

It is quite understandable when a person skilled in one field does not understand the nuances of words from another field and makes a mistake. (That does not detract from the fact that SCOTUS when it killed the Chevron Doctrine proclaimed that legislatures and judges know more about technology and science than do the technologists and scientists.)

Show threadElizabeth SudduthDec 11, 2024

@MissConstrue Unfortunately, the Sci Am article didn't explain it correctly either. The Ohio Clean Air Act suit was about all nitrogen oxides, which includes nitrogen oxide and nitrous oxide as well as other compounds made of nitrogen and oxygen.

Nitrous oxide is laughing gas, but it is also a commonly produced byproduct of industrial and natural microbial processes that is a potent greenhouse gas and was also part of the regulations.

Show threadElizabeth SudduthDec 11, 2024
@MissConstrue This New Republic article gives a better explanation.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/this-is-why-the-supreme-court-shouldn-t-try-to-do-the-epa-s-job/ar-BB1p56qy
MSN

Show threadElizabeth SudduthDec 11, 2024
@MissConstrue And yes, that's exactly why scientists at the EPA, not Supreme Court justices, should be determining policy. Because this stuff is so confusing that even hardworking science journalists and their editors and fact checkers can get it wrong.
Show threadhttps://gary.gocek.orgDec 21, 2024

@MissConstrue Your post says "theologists". The article refers to "legal theology", but this confusing term is not related to religion. Later, the article says there are no arguments against abortion except religious (true, and I am PRO choice), but that doesn't mean all agree there is a constitutional right TO abortion. A million Americans annually are able to get their abortions, in or out of state.

I question why you think the judges' technical mistakes are related to religion.

Show threadbeSpacificJan 13, 2025
@MissConstrue free link to read this important article - https://archive.is/feoT7#selection-273.0-357.1 #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #democracy #legalresearch #climatechange #ClimateCrisis #environment #ethics #govdocs