Midway through my election tech class today (during, coincidentally, a discussion of whether the president can federalize elections), I heard a voice in my head yelling “All this is irrelevant!
-
Between the “nationalizing elections” thing and the Georgia search warrant, once again the course syllabus keeps being overtaken by current events.
@mattblaze I can just see your classes...
Matt: okay students today we'll be covering... *sees news* dammit *throws lesson plan in trash*. We'll be talking about...
-
Between the “nationalizing elections” thing and the Georgia search warrant, once again the course syllabus keeps being overtaken by current events.
It must really piss some people here off that there are places where I can talk about this stuff (and get paid for it) where they can’t call me out for wasting time on irrelevant trivialities like the constitution and stuff.
-
@mattblaze I can just see your classes...
Matt: okay students today we'll be covering... *sees news* dammit *throws lesson plan in trash*. We'll be talking about...
@j_angliss This week, definitely
-
Midway through my election tech class today (during, coincidentally, a discussion of whether the president can federalize elections), I heard a voice in my head yelling “All this is irrelevant! The constitution no longer matters! Stop wasting people’s time with this bullshit!”
Fortunately, Mastodon is not actually enrolled in the course, so we were able to just have an interesting discussion.
Genuinely, if the SAVE Act passes and the Supreme Court chooses not to decide whether or not it's constitutional until after the midterms (or just decides that it is), is there a qualitative difference between that scenario and saying the Constitution (re: voting rights, states, etc.) does not matter?
Even if the government were to lose a lawsuit, say, four years from now, the temporary suspension of previous norms is likely to be influential in future norms.
Less tech, but you know.
-
Genuinely, if the SAVE Act passes and the Supreme Court chooses not to decide whether or not it's constitutional until after the midterms (or just decides that it is), is there a qualitative difference between that scenario and saying the Constitution (re: voting rights, states, etc.) does not matter?
Even if the government were to lose a lawsuit, say, four years from now, the temporary suspension of previous norms is likely to be influential in future norms.
Less tech, but you know.@knapjack Yes, it is different. For a detailed discussion of this topic, enroll in my course.
-
@knapjack Yes, it is different. For a detailed discussion of this topic, enroll in my course.
@knapjack If you are dissatisfied with this response, please feel free to complain to the dean at George Mason University.
-
@knapjack If you are dissatisfied with this response, please feel free to complain to the dean at George Mason University.
Not at all.
-
Midway through my election tech class today (during, coincidentally, a discussion of whether the president can federalize elections), I heard a voice in my head yelling “All this is irrelevant! The constitution no longer matters! Stop wasting people’s time with this bullshit!”
Fortunately, Mastodon is not actually enrolled in the course, so we were able to just have an interesting discussion.
@mattblaze I thought that John Mastodon was auditing this semester.
-
@knapjack If you are dissatisfied with this response, please feel free to complain to the dean at George Mason University.
@mattblaze @mattblaze @knapjack I thought we reported to a completely different university?
-
@mattblaze @mattblaze @knapjack I thought we reported to a completely different university?
@j_angliss @knapjack Could be George Washington. I always get these places confused.
-
@j_angliss @knapjack Could be George Washington. I always get these places confused.
@mattblaze @j_angliss @knapjack
For a nice change of pace, I recommend reporting Matt's sins to Carleton University's Provost.
-
R ActivityRelay shared this topic
