this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
246 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2588 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Chief's federal judiciary's year-end report may as well have been generated by ChatGPT.

For Chief Justice Roberts, the Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary is no longer a serious assessment of the state of the federal courts as much as it’s a taxpayer-funded blog post for him to express his disdain for the American people.

You might suspect that the design of an annual report of the federal judiciary would involve providing the American people with some sense that the Chief Justice of the United States grasps the issues facing the courts and, ideally, has some sort of plan for addressing them. After all, that’s the whole point of any annual report: to provide stakeholders with a sense of the successes and challenges facing an entity. It’s why a corporate 10-K can’t just decline to mention that the CEO is now wanted by Interpol.

While the federal judiciary in 2023 found itself beset by ethical scandals from top to bottom, jurists abandoning any sense of professionalism and decorum, a forum shopping crisis spawned by the lack of reform to the nationwide injunction procedure, and a criminal defendant openly attacking the judicial process and inspiring violent threats against federal judges, John Roberts addressed… none of these.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] seathru@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The same as someone living under the poverty line? No, I don't. But that is by far the tiniest part of the reason I feel they should be replaced.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So if a person living under the poverty line loses a finger, they will feel more physical pain when it gets lopped off than if it happened to a doctor?

Can you describe the physical mechanism here please?

[–] seathru@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The poor is going to get to wait in line at urgent care for 6 hours waiting to get it attended to and get sent home with asprin. You really think our medical system is equal among classes?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I think losing a finger hurts the same amount no matter how long you wait for it to get attended to afterward.

Also, that's not how ERs work. There's triage. Even if an uninsured person comes to an ER with an emergency like that, they will be seen quickly. I know, I've been in the ER three times in the past year for a lesser issue, I have insurance, and a prisoner from the federal prison got treated before I did because he had been stabbed. That's how ERs work. They don't base them on your bank balance.

A ranked class medical system has nothing to do with the literal ability to feel pain. You're acting like doctors somehow have different nervous systems from the rest of humanity.

Also, based on your rationale, are doctors who work at free clinics able to feel physical pain?