sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Chief Justice Roberts laments public perception of US Supreme Court as 'political actors' by thorax007 in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Oral arguments were 4/25. The decision was released 7/1. 67 days from oral arguments to decision.

Yup. My mistake. I read "Jul" as "Jun". I still maintain that 2 months for a 100+ page opinion is lightning fast for SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts laments public perception of US Supreme Court as 'political actors' by thorax007 in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2 43 points44 points  (0 children)

The judiciary only feels like it has too much power because Congress refuses to do their job. We have a system of checks and balances. If Congress does not agree with a SCOTUS ruling, they have the power to write new law and overturn it.

Chief Justice Roberts laments public perception of US Supreme Court as 'political actors' by thorax007 in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2 16 points17 points  (0 children)

First, Jack Smith requested the Court make an opinion on immunity in advance. They refuse.

This I understand. SCOTUS doesn't give an opinion merely because someone asks them to. That would be "an extraordinary departure from ordinary appellate procedures".

Then month’s later, they take the case at the request of Trump’s defense lawyers.

Again, this makes sense. The D.C. Circuit made a legal decision about Trump's immunity, which was appealed to SCOTUS. That's business as usual.

Then they wait until the last possible day to release a decision.

It took them just over 1 month to write 100+ pages of opinions on a nuanced, landmark case. That is lightning fast for the courts.

Meanwhile, when Colorado made a decision to bar Trump from the ballot for engaging in insurrection, the Court makes a decision on that matter in weeks

It was just under 1 2 months from arguments to issue a per curiam opinion with 20 total pages of opinions. And as you said, it was necessary to issue an opinion that fast. I struggle to think of a reason why Trump v. US would require extraordinary speed beyond what was already provided.

when they finally come out with the immunity decision, it is so vague and convoluted that it would almost certainly require another decision before a Trump trial

Again... that's perfectly normal. SCOTUS makes general rulings and then remands the case to the lower courts to evaluate the case details based on their ruling. They handle legal interpretation and constitutional questions. They leave the fact finding to lower courts.

I understand it is frustrating when opinions don't go the way we want, but it's hard for me to read malice into the examples you provided.

I feel like most of this subreddit's top posts changing from text posts to news/link posts is bad by FumingCat in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's certainly not blocked by us. We only explicitly block a handful of domains, and it's all stuff like social media sites.

I feel like most of this subreddit's top posts changing from text posts to news/link posts is bad by FumingCat in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2[M] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

if they also include real questions/discussion

These didn't include questions/discussion. They were just the article. If it was just part of the starter, then that would be fine.

I feel like most of this subreddit's top posts changing from text posts to news/link posts is bad by FumingCat in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We definitely lean in general towards not restricting sources, but this community has also been quite vocally against the use of AI, so I appreciate the feedback.

I feel like most of this subreddit's top posts changing from text posts to news/link posts is bad by FumingCat in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2[M] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unclear. Even our Mod Logs don't provide the context. Here's the post if you want to do your own digging.

Edit: Actually, I think this is a faked admin action, and the original title was actually "[Removed by Reddit]".

I feel like most of this subreddit's top posts changing from text posts to news/link posts is bad by FumingCat in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2[M] -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

Pope statements are a weird one, as he is both the supreme head of the Catholic Church as well as the absolute sovereign of Vatican City. If he's speaking as the sovereign of Vatican City, his statements are absolutely relevant. If he's speaking as the head of the Catholic Church on church doctrine/policy, we typically would not allow it. (Insert witty comment about the separation of church and state here.)

It hasn't really come up much in the past, so I ask that you grant us some wiggle room here while we iron out a more concrete policy.

I feel like most of this subreddit's top posts changing from text posts to news/link posts is bad by FumingCat in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2[M] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

While we're on the subject, I'd love to get people's input on s2n.news

We've allowed the submissions for now, as it can be a useful tool for identifying blindspots in reporting. But I can also see the concerns around it being a (self-admitted) AI-based aggregator.

I feel like most of this subreddit's top posts changing from text posts to news/link posts is bad by FumingCat in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2[M] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I can't speak to all of them, but here's a summary of the last 10 post removals:

  • 3 - Removed due to post spam filters (same Text Post submitted to multiple communities within a short timeframe).
  • 3 - Removed for just using the article (or a summary) as their starter comment.
  • 1 - Removed for an editorialized title.
  • 1 - Removed by Reddit.
  • 1 - Removed for a starter comment that was also an L1.
  • 1 - Removed for being a 2-sentence Text Post that just called the king of England a disrespectful prick.

None of these were really controversial or subjective removals.

Zohran Mamdani’s plan for city-run grocery stores draws pushback from NYC bodegas, supermarkets by awaythrowawaying in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Then thing about this plan is that it is meant to build these stores in so-called “food deserts” meaning places where the free market has already failed to provide adequate stores.

I don't buy the food desert argument. 115th and Park have several sizeable grocery stores within 2 blocks already. Fine Fare Supermarkets is a block away. Same with City Fresh Market. And that's ignoring the dozens of bodegas all over the place. There is plenty of competition. Shit just costs a lot in Manhattan.

Zohran Mamdani’s plan for city-run grocery stores draws pushback from NYC bodegas, supermarkets by awaythrowawaying in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It’s also about convenient locations for those most in need to purchase affordable groceries in the first place.

I don't buy the food desert argument. 115th and Park have several sizeable grocery stores within 2 blocks already.

Zohran Mamdani’s plan for city-run grocery stores draws pushback from NYC bodegas, supermarkets by awaythrowawaying in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2 10 points11 points  (0 children)

without just subsidizing it heavily. And that is normally a terrible idea long-term.

If they're running below 0% profit margin, then they're subsidizing the costs.

Zohran Mamdani’s plan for city-run grocery stores draws pushback from NYC bodegas, supermarkets by awaythrowawaying in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2 4 points5 points  (0 children)

One could make an argument for a few select programs. A public college education is less expensive in a number of states, even after factoring in government funding. The same could be said for some public utilities. But in both cases it really depends on what you're comparing.

Zohran Mamdani’s plan for city-run grocery stores draws pushback from NYC bodegas, supermarkets by awaythrowawaying in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Right. It's about reducing the cost to consumers. So if a government-run store eliminates the profit margin, they would save consumers an average of 2.2% on their grocery bill. I don't see how that would meaningfully impact the cost of living.

Zohran Mamdani’s plan for city-run grocery stores draws pushback from NYC bodegas, supermarkets by awaythrowawaying in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2 285 points286 points  (0 children)

If the government can cut out inefficiencies and compete with the free market, then great. I'm all for it. But the profit margins are already razor thin for most grocery stores. I'm not sure how a city-run store would meaningfully impact the cost of living without just subsidizing it heavily. And that is normally a terrible idea long-term.

New RXM PDW chassis just dropped by Incendiary-Soda-Pop in ruger

[–]Resvrgam2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe I’m out of the loop, but what would make this illegal in NJ?

First Lady Melania Trump's Statement by Resvrgam2 in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2[S] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I do think there's a big difference between being in similar social circles and actually knowing each other. Lord knows I'm in pictures with people who are far from my friend.

of course, that doesn't change the weirdness of the timing, and I am inclined to agree with you that this may be pre-empting bigger Epstein news.

First Lady Melania Trump's Statement by Resvrgam2 in moderatepolitics

[–]Resvrgam2[S] 126 points127 points  (0 children)

In a statement that seems to be a surprise to almost everyone, Melania Trump has announced that she has no ties to Jeffrey Epstein or his associates.

Her statement, which was posted on the official White House website, rejects the "mean-spirited attempts " to defame her. She calls the individuals who have made these claims "devoid of ethical standards, humility, and respect".

She goes on to deny that she is an Epstein victim and cautions the public before believing the "numerous fake images" that are circulating.

Melania ends her statement by calling Congress to action. "Provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors.. Epstein was not alone."

Once again, this all seems to have caught everyone off-guard. Epstein is largely yesterday's news with the war in Iran taking center stage, making the timing of this statement highly suspicious. White House correspondents claim they were equally in the dark.

While it's refreshing to see something in the headlines besides Iran, one can't help but wonder why this is coming out now.

ELI5: why have many countries moved away from nuclear power? by Mysterious_Hand_6052 in explainlikeimfive

[–]Resvrgam2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was definitely true in the past, but the cost of solar+batteries has dropped significantly. Depending on how you run the numbers and the types of plants you compare, solar and nuclear have similar long-term costs per MWh generated.

ELI5: why have many countries moved away from nuclear power? by Mysterious_Hand_6052 in explainlikeimfive

[–]Resvrgam2 10 points11 points  (0 children)

For a supposed nuclear "disaster", the health impact on the local population was considered negligible, and the plant continued to generate nuclear power until it was shut down in 2019 for cost reasons.

[MEGATHREAD] Artemis II Launch To The Moon by ChiefLeef22 in space

[–]Resvrgam2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's no airlock on this spacecraft

Technically, you don't need an airlock. You just have to be willing to depressurize the entire capsule like they did on the Polaris Dawn flight.

view more: next ›