3 ms·

Star Trek cited by Texas Supreme Court

25 points by yayitswei 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
The following news almost makes up for how often I hide my head in shame of the decisions of the Texas courts. Sigh. Does everything have to have a political overtone? If your point is that the judge used Star Trek in order to decide issues of law, you are mistaken. If your point is that it is silly for the judge, in his opinion, to refer to popular literature and metaphors, you are also mistaken. In fact, looks to me from the above quote that the whole article is just an excuse to use what is a neat example of Trek continuing to have an effect on the mythos of our age as a stick to beat on Texans, probably because most of them don't see eye-to-eye with the author. Perhaps that wasn't diplomatic enough for the author. But, to quote a famous fictional engineer: "Ah, diplomacy; I adore diplomacy...Diplomacy? The best diplomat I know of is a fully charged phaser bank!"" Sorry. I just don't like folks using Trek to take swipes at political affiliation. There are some very good people in Texas of all stripes. This could have been a much better trivia article if the author could have left out his little jabs. (And yes, I am assuming sarcasm in the above quote)
- jberryman 16y ago
  In fact, looks to me from the above quote that the whole article is just an excuse to use what is a neat example of Trek continuing to have an effect on the mythos of our age as a stick to beat on Texans, probably because most of them don't see eye-to-eye with the author. I think his point was that here is a cool geeky thing, preceded by a paragraph about how he feels about Texas government, which I agree isn't really relevant.
- msbarnett 16y ago
  Does being shamed by Texas courts really have a political overtone? I interpreted that as a reference to the Eastern District of Texas Federal Court, the preferred venue of patent trolls due to the notoriously complainant-friendly judges there. Shame over that mess should know no political boundaries.
  - wtallis 16y ago
    Exactly. When a town's economy is significantly dependent on how reliably biased its courts are, such that hotels and other businesses are sustained by visiting lawyers, that's a clear sign that the courts are messed up beyond any political excuse. Trial by jury isn't due process in that town, because an unbiased jury can't be assembled from its citizens.
DannoHung 16y ago
So, in case anyone is interested in what the actual ruling was about: A couple sued the company which purchased the husband's former employer for asbestos related mesothelioma. The Texas legislature enacted a law which retroactively indemnified companies from being sued in such cases, most interestingly is that this couple's suit was the only one which was affected. The widow (the husband having passed) challenged this ruling as unconstitutional with regards to the Texas constitution. The judgement handed down sides with her, though I don't think that a judgement has yet been made in the original case.
Semiapies 16y ago
For details on the actual case: http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/230714-texas-supreme-court-crown-cork-asbestos-suit-protection-unconstitutional http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/230714-texas-supreme-court... Quick sum-up: "Law passed to retroactively protect one company from asbestos lawsuits deemed bullshit" Yes indeed, my state's court system can occasionally get something right, and very occasionally a Team Red judge like Willet will make cogent arguments and decisions actually based on concepts of limited government.
SkyMarshal 16y ago
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." I always found the reverse, from Star Trek III, more thought-provoking: The needs of the few, or the one, outweigh the needs of the many. While our government is ostensibly decided by the majority, our system also recognizes and guards the fundamental rights of the minority.
- gnaritas 16y ago
  Only to a point, but there is no right that a large enough majority cannot take from the minority legally.
- britta 16y ago
  Yeah, I see the point of III as "Oh wait, it's not always so simple as the needs of the few vs. many - we are all connected and some needs are more important than other needs. And now that we have that settled, time for more adventure." Not really as catchy though.
nkassis 16y ago
I'm glad I'm not the only one that quotes Star Trek all the time. I can tell my wife and friends that even Judges uses Star Trek to prove points. Live long and prosper. That should be a ethos for startups. Also, maybe someday people won't laugh at me when I tell them Star Trek invented the future. --Trekker/ie
stretchwithme 16y ago
That's baloney. The police power flows from the individual's right to defend his own rights and to cooperate with others to do so. When the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, the few can volunteer to help out or the many can offer something to compensate the few for helping out. But the many don't have the right to sacrifice the few whenever they decide it will hurt the few less than it will hurt the many. If anything, the law is all about opposing mob rule. Its interesting to note that in the following movie Kirk explains that he went back to find Spock because the needs of the few sometimes outweigh the needs of the many. All this really means is that an individual or a group can decide to help others when the value of the saved is clearly worth more to themselves than even a personal loss or even risk to one's own life.
- nkassis 16y ago
  I guess this is all in the constitution as majority rule with minority rights. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few except when the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. :p
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    i think the constitution is more about protecting the rights of all individuals. There's no weighing to be done there because the rights of one individual do not conflict with the rights of others. Rights don't require anyone to be sacrificed.

25 points by yayitswei 16y ago

The following news almost makes up for how often I hide my head in shame of the decisions of the Texas courts. Sigh. Does everything have to have a political overtone? If your point is that the judge used Star Trek in order to decide issues of law, you are mistaken. If your point is that it is silly for the judge, in his opinion, to refer to popular literature and metaphors, you are also mistaken. In fact, looks to me from the above quote that the whole article is just an excuse to use what is a neat example of Trek continuing to have an effect on the mythos of our age as a stick to beat on Texans, probably because most of them don't see eye-to-eye with the author. Perhaps that wasn't diplomatic enough for the author. But, to quote a famous fictional engineer: "Ah, diplomacy; I adore diplomacy...Diplomacy? The best diplomat I know of is a fully charged phaser bank!"" Sorry. I just don't like folks using Trek to take swipes at political affiliation. There are some very good people in Texas of all stripes. This could have been a much better trivia article if the author could have left out his little jabs. (And yes, I am assuming sarcasm in the above quote)

jberryman 16y ago
In fact, looks to me from the above quote that the whole article is just an excuse to use what is a neat example of Trek continuing to have an effect on the mythos of our age as a stick to beat on Texans, probably because most of them don't see eye-to-eye with the author. I think his point was that here is a cool geeky thing, preceded by a paragraph about how he feels about Texas government, which I agree isn't really relevant.
msbarnett 16y ago
Does being shamed by Texas courts really have a political overtone? I interpreted that as a reference to the Eastern District of Texas Federal Court, the preferred venue of patent trolls due to the notoriously complainant-friendly judges there. Shame over that mess should know no political boundaries.
- wtallis 16y ago
  Exactly. When a town's economy is significantly dependent on how reliably biased its courts are, such that hotels and other businesses are sustained by visiting lawyers, that's a clear sign that the courts are messed up beyond any political excuse. Trial by jury isn't due process in that town, because an unbiased jury can't be assembled from its citizens.

DannoHung 16y ago

So, in case anyone is interested in what the actual ruling was about: A couple sued the company which purchased the husband's former employer for asbestos related mesothelioma. The Texas legislature enacted a law which retroactively indemnified companies from being sued in such cases, most interestingly is that this couple's suit was the only one which was affected. The widow (the husband having passed) challenged this ruling as unconstitutional with regards to the Texas constitution. The judgement handed down sides with her, though I don't think that a judgement has yet been made in the original case.

Semiapies 16y ago

For details on the actual case: http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/230714-texas-supreme-court-crown-cork-asbestos-suit-protection-unconstitutional http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/230714-texas-supreme-court... Quick sum-up: "Law passed to retroactively protect one company from asbestos lawsuits deemed bullshit" Yes indeed, my state's court system can occasionally get something right, and very occasionally a Team Red judge like Willet will make cogent arguments and decisions actually based on concepts of limited government.

SkyMarshal 16y ago

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." I always found the reverse, from Star Trek III, more thought-provoking: The needs of the few, or the one, outweigh the needs of the many. While our government is ostensibly decided by the majority, our system also recognizes and guards the fundamental rights of the minority.

gnaritas 16y ago
Only to a point, but there is no right that a large enough majority cannot take from the minority legally.
britta 16y ago
Yeah, I see the point of III as "Oh wait, it's not always so simple as the needs of the few vs. many - we are all connected and some needs are more important than other needs. And now that we have that settled, time for more adventure." Not really as catchy though.

nkassis 16y ago

I'm glad I'm not the only one that quotes Star Trek all the time. I can tell my wife and friends that even Judges uses Star Trek to prove points. Live long and prosper. That should be a ethos for startups. Also, maybe someday people won't laugh at me when I tell them Star Trek invented the future. --Trekker/ie

stretchwithme 16y ago

That's baloney. The police power flows from the individual's right to defend his own rights and to cooperate with others to do so. When the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, the few can volunteer to help out or the many can offer something to compensate the few for helping out. But the many don't have the right to sacrifice the few whenever they decide it will hurt the few less than it will hurt the many. If anything, the law is all about opposing mob rule. Its interesting to note that in the following movie Kirk explains that he went back to find Spock because the needs of the few sometimes outweigh the needs of the many. All this really means is that an individual or a group can decide to help others when the value of the saved is clearly worth more to themselves than even a personal loss or even risk to one's own life.

nkassis 16y ago
I guess this is all in the constitution as majority rule with minority rights. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few except when the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. :p
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  i think the constitution is more about protecting the rights of all individuals. There's no weighing to be done there because the rights of one individual do not conflict with the rights of others. Rights don't require anyone to be sacrificed.