|
Nobody likes you and you're wasting your money and time
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 06:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
010724_2 posted:hears donald trump's ballot issues, refuses dateguy's somethingawful's freedom of speech issues
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 06:26
|
|
|
Warhol’s sky-high status now has an aura of historical inevitability, as if the brute facts (exhibitions, sales, attention) are what really matter, and whatever one thinks about the intricacies of artistic practice and philosophy is of secondary importance. Warhol’s supporters are inclined to go further. From the brute facts they derive aesthetic arguments. Because he’s outrageously famous, it follows that he’s profoundly original. That is what aesthetics come down to in the Age of Warhol. This line of thought, embraced by art critics and historians since around the time of the MoMA retrospective, has now reached the United States Supreme Court, in the form of Justice Elena Kagan’s long dissenting opinion in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, which was decided in May. At the core of all artistic activity there is an act of transformation, and by Kagan’s lights one of the great masters of transformation is Warhol, a figure she compares to a couple of the masters of the Italian Renaissance. The confidence with which Kagan makes her argument, a layman’s assertions bolstered by a half-century of art criticism and art history, only demonstrates how horribly debased the general understanding of artistic processes has become in recent years. A generation ago members of the educated public may have found themselves daunted by the fractured forms of Picasso’s Cubism—or the babel of language in Joyce’s Finnegans Wake or the astringencies of Stravinsky’s Agon—but they accepted the titanic transformations those works involved as a challenge to be explored, debated, approached with a healthy skepticism. For Kagan and other members of the educated public there may be some relief in the immediacy of Warhol’s effects, which a museumgoer can grasp without thought, reflection, or struggle of any kind. After Warhol, confronting Picasso’s enigmas may seem as retro as taking a car trip without GPS. Kagan, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, obviously believed that she was taking the high road in this case, which involved a photograph by Lynn Goldsmith of the musician Prince that Warhol used as the basis for a series of works, one of which landed on the cover of a special edition Condé Nast magazine without Goldsmith receiving any acknowledgment or payment. The issue before the Court was what is known as fair use. Had Warhol altered Goldsmith’s photograph to such an extent that he came up with an entirely independent work of art? In which case Goldsmith would have been unable to claim protection for her photograph under the copyright laws. I have no interest in engaging with the complex questions that surround fair use and copyright, except to say that these are questions that have involved court dates for a number of artists—including Richard Prince and Jeff Koons—who have followed Warhol’s lead in their wholesale appropriation of other people’s images. What does interest me here is the eagerness with which Kagan has chosen to speak on behalf of Warhol, not only as a judge but, ex officio one might say, for the sophisticated museumgoing public. What Kagan salutes as “the dazzling creativity evident in the Prince portrait” amounts to nothing more than the recropping of a photograph and the replacement of the modulated grays of the original with some bright, hard-edged color shapes. She’s on firm ground when she asserts that there is “expert evidence” to support her assertion. But Kagan isn’t content to demonstrate that some sort of artistic process has taken place. She wants to make sure that Warhol has a place in the Great Tradition. She complains that the majority, by concluding that Warhol has indeed infringed on Goldsmith’s copyright, “stymies and suppresses that [transformative] process, in art and every other kind of creative endeavor.” She’s not making an argument for Warhol as some sort of modernist or postmodernist. She’s saying that he does what all the great artists have done. She compares him with Giorgione, Titian, and Manet, artists who “engaged with a prior work to create new expression and add new value,” as if that were what Warhol was doing when he slapped some bright colors on a photograph of Prince. Wasn’t there anybody around the Supreme Court willing to warn Kagan that she risked absurdity when she mentioned Giorgione and Titian in the same pages as Warhol?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 20:13
|
|
|
Engorged Pedipalps posted:What the heck happened here Conservatives won the court, because we need a strong republican party, and it would be rude not to let them do what they want, its their turn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 21:23
|
|
|
we still get minor moral victories like affirming the artistic significance of andy warhol tho
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 21:31
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:we still get minor moral victories like affirming the artistic significance of andy warhol tho The repulicans are the party of choosing judges, based on how dems acted when they had the chance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 21:33
|
|
|
Engorged Pedipalps posted:What the heck happened here lol yeah
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 01:09
|
|
|
is there a spring decision preview article up yet somewhere? its nice to catch up on the horror coming down the pike before it hits
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 01:24
|
|
|
i was going to make up some fake thing that sounded obscenely dystopian but i realized that there is nothing i could say that was obviously untrue enough to be funny
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 01:30
|
|
|
In a 7-2 decision spitting in a government officials food now carries a 5 year minimum jail time + restitution by comping all meals
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 01:37
|
|
|
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo: this is a chance to end chevron deference - boring regulatory issue about whether boats should have to pay for their inspectors - chevron is where courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of vague laws. Overturning it means every single agency interpretation is subject to judicial review no matter how reasonable. More to it than that but I’m watching the ncaa championship and that’s all I’ve got Moody v Netchoice: states trying g to tell social media companies how to moderate content Ohio v EPA: this is about the California emission standards for automobiles Garland v Cargill: bump stocks lmao Coinbase v Suski: boring arbitration poo poo but also dogecoin meme poo poo at USSC There will be more but those are the most notable currently on the calendar. More horrors will be scheduled don’t you worry
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 02:00
|
|
|
when's the Trump case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 06:46
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:we still get minor moral victories like affirming the artistic significance of andy warhol tho 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 11:59
|
|
|
I can't wait until they end chevron deference, America is going to get extremely Free afterwards
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
010724_2 posted:hears donald trump's ballot issues, refuses dateguy's somethingawful's freedom of speech issues lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 16:30
|
|
|
I can't wait to be free to get botulism from a restaurant because the market will now let other rational actors be informed that they should avoid the place for their unsafe food practices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
Can't let those goons down at the FDA tell me what's safe food, I trust the Yum! corporation
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 16:48
|
|
|
To be fair ending chevron doesn’t kill the administrative state it’s just a step in that direction. The administrative state existed before 1984 after all. It just means that there’s going to be a whole lot more litigation around rules and judges will have a lot more leeway to insert themselves into the process and just rewrite the rules how they think they should be. That was the whole point of chevron, shutting down constant litigation and the principle that the ‘subject matter experts’ were better suited to write regulations than lawyers with enough political connections to secure federal judgeships I imagine the immediate effect will be industry with deep pockets flaunting rules they don’t like and using the threat of lawsuits to get around enforcement while other players without those deep pockets will still have to follow the rules Obviously you’ll also see lots of litigation in the fifth circuit for particularly disliked rules
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 18:03
|
|
|
In Training posted:when's the Trump case. Early February. I didn’t include it because I don’t think it’ll be much beyond a media circus because it’s inevitable that one way or another the court is gonna tell Colorado to gently caress off with that bullshit
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 18:26
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:To be fair ending chevron doesn’t kill the administrative state it’s just a step in that direction. The administrative state existed before 1984 after all. It just means that there’s going to be a whole lot more litigation around rules and judges will have a lot more leeway to insert themselves into the process and just rewrite the rules how they think they should be. That was the whole point of chevron, shutting down constant litigation and the principle that the ‘subject matter experts’ were better suited to write regulations than lawyers with enough political connections to secure federal judgeships I was referring to the likelihood that a lot of businesses are going to start flaunting regulations using some insane interpretation of regulatory language and eventually will be the ones defining regulatory language as long as they get whatever federal court to agree with them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
Badactura posted:I was referring to the likelihood that a lot of businesses are going to start flaunting regulations using some insane interpretation of regulatory language and eventually will be the ones defining regulatory language as long as they get whatever federal court to agree with them. Yeah I got ya, but like anything in America it’ll create a two tiered system where deep pocketed powerful players get to flaunt rules and little guys who can’t afford to threaten litigation in a favorable jurisdiction are still mostly beholden to the system as it exists (but don’t shed too many tears for them, they mostly benefit from congress underfunding the regulatory agencies)
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:Yeah I got ya, but like anything in America it’ll create a two tiered system where deep pocketed powerful players get to flaunt rules and little guys who can’t afford to threaten litigation in a favorable jurisdiction are still mostly beholden to the system as it exists (but don’t shed too many tears for them, they mostly benefit from congress underfunding the regulatory agencies) Yeah that all seems likely. It's how it works with crime and most civil litigation already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 18:46
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:To be fair ending chevron doesn’t kill the administrative state it’s just a step in that direction. The administrative state existed before 1984 after all. It just means that there’s going to be a whole lot more litigation around rules and judges will have a lot more leeway to insert themselves into the process and just rewrite the rules how they think they should be. That was the whole point of chevron, shutting down constant litigation and the principle that the ‘subject matter experts’ were better suited to write regulations than lawyers with enough political connections to secure federal judgeships i have trouble getting too upset about the end of chevron because the chevron era has gone hand in hand with congress just refusing to actually legislate anything anymore and letting the bureaucracy do it instead despite the laws the bureaucracy is interpreting at this point predating the invention of the fax machine i think ideally the laws that govern our everyday life should be determined by political processes which take into account the way these regulations affect private citizens based on direct feedback from those citizens instead of by career officials who face no repercussions regardless of the outcomes caused by their arbitrary interpretations but i dunno maybe i just dont have sufficient respect for our countrys democratic institutions
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:i have trouble getting too upset about the end of chevron because the chevron era has gone hand in hand with congress just refusing to actually legislate anything anymore and letting the bureaucracy do it instead despite the laws the bureaucracy is interpreting at this point predating the invention of the fax machine I wouldn't valorize the opinion of the private citizen over the bureaucrat. I do agree that the legislature should do more to regulate things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 19:03
|
|
|
Badactura posted:Yeah that all seems likely. It's how it works with crime and most civil litigation already. Yeah I see it all the time in my line of work (state and local tax) where a company will be under audit and pushback on some issue or another and the relevant department will drop it for that audit because they don’t want to risk an unfavorable court ruling and it’s better to let one big player get off the hook than to have everyone get off the hook Some Guy TT posted:i think ideally the laws that govern our everyday life should be determined by political processes which take into account the way these regulations affect private citizens based on direct feedback from those citizens instead of by career officials who face no repercussions regardless of the outcomes caused by their arbitrary interpretations but i dunno maybe i just dont have sufficient respect for our countrys democratic institutions I have some amount of respect for this argument and political capture is a very real thing in regulatory bodies, but at the same time I don’t think congress is going to be able to legislate all the ins and outs of every issue and there is wisdom deferring to subject matter experts rather than judges who are just going to side with industry 100% of the time as opposed to 80% of the time. I don’t think getting rid of chevron will fix the fact that congress won’t legislate. It’s just going to change who gets to make the rules and if you think some TTU law school alum who gave lots of cash to Ted Cruz will make better regs than the guys in the EPA I have to disagree HashtagGirlboss has issued a correction as of 19:05 on Jan 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 19:03
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:i have trouble getting too upset about the end of chevron because the chevron era has gone hand in hand with congress just refusing to actually legislate anything anymore and letting the bureaucracy do it instead despite the laws the bureaucracy is interpreting at this point predating the invention of the fax machine lol why the gently caress do you think congress is a democratic insitution if they strike it down it'll only be used to justify doing less good things and to explain away why they can't do good things. for more information look at everything that has happened ever in amerikkka for any reason
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 19:05
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:Yeah I see it all the time in my line of work (state and local tax) where a company will be under audit and pushback on some issue or another and the relevant department will drop it for that audit because they don’t want to risk an unfavorable court ruling and it’s better to let one big player get off the hook than to have everyone get off the hook I clerk for a judge who does mostly criminal stuff and it's basically baked into the system there at this point. Either you're taking a plea deal or you're rich enough to hire private counsel to contest even a spurious charge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
tokin opposition posted:lol why the gently caress do you think congress is a democratic insitution "ideally" was doing a lot of heavy lifting there obviously not much of a pretense of that anymore but maybe there was still some left in 1984 idk that chevron is even a supreme court doctrine to begin with instead of like an actual law was a pretty indicative harbinger of what was to come
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:"ideally" was doing a lot of heavy lifting there obviously not much of a pretense of that anymore but maybe there was still some left in 1984 idk I think the primary difference between 1984 and now is that industry groups were less sophisticated and so you didn’t have the same level of regulatory capture in the administrative agencies and you didn’t have the same grueling ideological lockstep conformity among conservative judges. Otherwise, most of the cracks were already there and while they’re bigger problems now they were entirely predictable at the time Badactura posted:I clerk for a judge who does mostly criminal stuff and it's basically baked into the system there at this point. Either you're taking a plea deal or you're rich enough to hire private counsel to contest even a spurious charge. Criminal justice system is just utterly broken and I don’t know of anyway to fix it. We tried the reform DA thing and they pushed milquetoast reforms at best and that was still way too far for the powers that be
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:Criminal justice system is just utterly broken and I don’t know of anyway to fix it. We tried the reform DA thing and they pushed milquetoast reforms at best and that was still way too far for the powers that be Criminal justice stuff is part of what drives me into capital C Communism. There just isn't a way to reform criminal law enforcement without ending private property.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 19:52
|
|
|
Badactura posted:capital C Communism
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 02:52
|
|
|
Badactura posted:.....law enforcement ......ending private property......
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 02:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 02:54
|
|
|
stfu
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 03:27
|
|
|
What is he an anarchist or something
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 15:40
|
|
|
I'm hoping the Supreme Court declares the Tax Anti-Injunction Act unconstitutional so the courts all go bust in tax assessment/collection litigation.  HashtagGirlboss posted:Yeah I see it all the time in my line of work (state and local tax) Ah, a few SALTy motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 19:19
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:I'm hoping the Supreme Court declares the Tax Anti-Injunction Act unconstitutional so the courts all go bust in tax assessment/collection litigation. lol yeah. I’m primarily in transaction taxes so we already had our big Supreme Court ruling in 2018 with Wayfair but it’s always a poo poo ton of fun when they come in and just flip the whole game board like that. That said with the trend towards state’s rights as fun as that would be I don’t see it happening anytime soon
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 19:28
|
|
|
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether homeless people have a right to camp on public property, weighing in on an appeal backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats who have struggled to manage a record number of people living on the streets. Democrats in the West have urged the majority conservative high court to overturn a lower court ruling that struck down the anti-camping ordinance of Grants Pass, Oregon, and give them more leeway to address a homeless population that has swelled in recent years. Leaders of blue states and cities now find themselves in the unusual position of hoping the conservative high court will overrule the generally more liberal Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allow them to more aggressively act against homeless encampments. “California has invested billions to address homelessness, but rulings from the bench have tied the hands of state and local governments to address this issue,” Newsom said. “The Supreme Court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need.” The California governor has repeatedly condemned lower court rulings in the case, arguing that they prevent state and local governments from addressing what has become one of the most significant quality-of-life issues for voters across the region. Judges struck down the Grants Pass ordinance because the small city did not have adequate shelter for the people living on its streets. That legal precedent has rippled across the West Coast, where a homelessness crisis has led tents to proliferate on sidewalks, in parks and underneath highways. Like Newsom, San Francisco Mayor London Breed criticized a related ruling that barred her administration from moving people off the street, leading a rally outside a courthouse in an unusually public rebuke of the judicial branch. Newsom had urged the Supreme Court to take up the case — an unusual stance for the Democratic governor, who has regularly excoriated the conservative court’s decisions on guns and abortion rights. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in April and is expected to issue a ruling by June.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 20:46
|
|
|
that phrasing makes me angry
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether homeless people have a right to camp on public property, weighing in on an appeal backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats who have struggled to manage a record number of people living on the streets. newsome's 2028 campaign ads will feature him sawing a homeless person in half quote:Newsom had urged the Supreme Court to take up the case — an unusual stance for the Democratic governor, who has regularly excoriated the conservative court’s decisions on guns and abortion rights. lmao and the author probably believes this
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 23:29
|
|
