This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is David with a comment on our post about the Russian government abusing the law to shut down Alexey Navalny’s smart voting app:
It’s worth remembering that Navalny is in a labor camp for violating the conditions of his probation by not dying but getting foreign medical aid after being poisoned by Putin’s thugs.
In second place, it’s James Burkhardt with a comment about the unsealed documents in the Nunes family farm lawsuit against Ryan Lizza:
When the plaintiffs testify they do not know who is paying for the case, that should be an immediate dismissal unless that information can be provided (under seal) to the court and council. The funding implies a party without standing is funding the case, and while legal, it potentially means a party whose interests do not necessarily align with the plaintiffs is paying for.
Given Plaintiffs testify documents have been submitted that are false or misattributed to the plaintiff, whomever is paying for this case is probably directing the prosecution of the suit and appears to be operating against the best interests of the plaintiffs. This is furthered by Biss’ attempts to prevent workers from taking the fifth on the questions of documents that prove they can legally work (taking the fifth tanks the case because it can legally be assumed by the court the reason the fifth was taken in a civil case, known as an adverse inference, but taking the fifth may be the best decision for the workers as individuals)
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with one more comment from James Burkhardt, this time responding to a request for a summary and explanation of our post about the gravity of Supreme Court’s actions regarding the Texas abortion law:
Courts, from the local courthouse to the Supreme Court of the United States, exist to help people settle adult arguments. Normally, they try be fair and decide the same way every time. This lets people learn how a court makes a decision. If a court changes its mind, it likes to explain the change. That way we can still understand what is okay and what is not and why.
When the court made a decision in this arguement, they changed their mind about a lot of things. One thing they changed their mind about is explaining why they changed their mind. A lot of people are very upset because now we don’t know what is okay and what is not.
Next, it’s another comment from that post, this time from TaboToka providing another reaction:
SCOTUS crossed the Rubicon
and it cannot uncross it.
This is symptomatic of the last decades of corrosive rule — of putting winning at all costs to appease a small minority of oligarchs over the majority of citizens.
When FDR was faced with a social backlash to the wreckage of the Gilded Age, he helped out the average work-a-day folks with a raft of (gasp) Social programs. This lesson was not institutionalized, instead it was derided, demonized and dismantled as soon as possible.
Since 1978, purchasing power has stagnated; standards of living have slipped and more money and power has flowed upwards. Without a fair rule of law, we unwashed masses have literally nowhere to go to address our grievances. Our politicians are bought-and-sold. We can no longer rely on the courts. What’s next?
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous comment from that same post, this time from an describing the input of an extremely odious commenter:
Don’t worry, it’s just a run-of-the-mill retelling of the timeless classic: “If you give a mouse a cookie, he’ll recite Mein Kampf from heart”.
In second place, it’s Toom1275 with a comment about Sony apparently using fan art without credit:
Under the ContentID model, Sony now owes all its revenue from the movie to the artist.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from Valis in response to a commenter who offered an extremely strained defense of Apple’s opposition to affordable repairs:
So what’s it like, working in Apple’s marketing department?
Finally, we head to our post about Texas’s unconstitutional social media censorship bill, where an anonymous commenter took on the notion that moderation is “conduct”, and distinct from speech:
Even if moderation wasn’t purely speech…
I won’t stand for this! It is as plain as the shirt on my back that this is a red flag issue. Conduct often is speech.
I should start a leaflet campaign. I could have the volunteers wear matching shirts. The leaflets would be patriotic, and have the American flag on them, and every now and then we’d have the volunteers burn one.
… but y’know? It is amazing how often Texas that is the cause of these Supreme Court precedents defending the first amendment. Maybe they’re looking to keep their record…
Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week. Try the veal!
That’s all for this week, folks!
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon