3 ms·

> This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality That is literally all of the SCOTUS rulings. It's petty listening to bright minds discuss min

> This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality That is literally all of the SCOTUS rulings. It's petty listening to bright minds discuss minute details. The fact that technicalities have far reaching effects is a sign that the system is broken.

snoshy 6y ago
I don't see that this some sign of systemic dysfunction. Given the significant amount of time and effort that is expended before a legal dispute is considered by SCOTUS, it stands to reason that the arguments would be sufficiently nuanced at that stage. If the highest court of the land doesn't sweat the details, why would lower courts or any other aspect of our legal system be reasonably expected to do so? In any reasonably complex system (legal or otherwise), it should make sense that the technicalities do matter, and that the supreme decision making body in that system should consider those carefully due to the outsized influence it holds.
elbigbad 6y ago
Putting aside the question of what makes a "tecnicality," the fact that technicalities are able to be put forth and argued until a decisionmaker makes a ruling, rather than having a party decide unilaterally how to resolve the technicality, presumably at the peril of their opponent, means the system is working well.
shmageggy 6y ago
I think this a result of survivorship bias by design, not that anything is broken. If a case had little effect, it wouldn't be worth the court's time. If a case were easy to resolve, a lower court would have done so. So that only leaves important yet difficult and complex cases.
ianai 6y ago
I almost think they “like” to word things in this way so they can side step the larger ramifications of their decisions to certain people. It feels frustrating to those outside the law. But that’s always been true of the law, as far as I’ve read. Also remember that our legal system is a direct inheritance of the English legal system we separated from in the 1700s. There’s actually more history to our laws than to our country. So to some extent the years of buildup contributing to confusion stem back pretty far into the past. We would have a lot of work ahead of us to reinvent the quirkiness out of the system.
- rayiner 6y ago
  It helps if you realize that the English legal system developed as an alternative to trial by combat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat. The point isn't to empower judges to make decisions that have the best "ramifications" "to certain people." It's to reach a decision that people who violently disagree about those "ramifications" are nonetheless forced to accept the result because it was reached in accordance with agreed-upon rules. That's why so many decisions come down to careful parsing of words and "technicalities." A case that reaches the Supreme Court will usually have generated intense controversy about what is the more desirable result. Thus, the focus is on reaching a decision that people can't argue with because of scrupulous adherence to rules and doctrines.
_jal 6y ago
> The fact that technicalities have far reaching effects is a sign that the system is broken. I find that an utterly hilarious thing to say in a forum with a large number of highly technical people, and another large number of people who understand complex, nontechnical systems.
chrisoverzero 6y ago
>That is literally all of the SCOTUS rulings. Korematsu v. United States? Brown v. Board of Education? Loving v. Virginia? Obergefell v. Hodges? Roe v. Wade? Dozens of others? I have to assume you mean this batch of rulings, otherwise I can’t comprehend this idea.

snoshy 6y ago

I don't see that this some sign of systemic dysfunction. Given the significant amount of time and effort that is expended before a legal dispute is considered by SCOTUS, it stands to reason that the arguments would be sufficiently nuanced at that stage. If the highest court of the land doesn't sweat the details, why would lower courts or any other aspect of our legal system be reasonably expected to do so? In any reasonably complex system (legal or otherwise), it should make sense that the technicalities do matter, and that the supreme decision making body in that system should consider those carefully due to the outsized influence it holds.

elbigbad 6y ago

Putting aside the question of what makes a "tecnicality," the fact that technicalities are able to be put forth and argued until a decisionmaker makes a ruling, rather than having a party decide unilaterally how to resolve the technicality, presumably at the peril of their opponent, means the system is working well.

shmageggy 6y ago

I think this a result of survivorship bias by design, not that anything is broken. If a case had little effect, it wouldn't be worth the court's time. If a case were easy to resolve, a lower court would have done so. So that only leaves important yet difficult and complex cases.

ianai 6y ago

I almost think they “like” to word things in this way so they can side step the larger ramifications of their decisions to certain people. It feels frustrating to those outside the law. But that’s always been true of the law, as far as I’ve read. Also remember that our legal system is a direct inheritance of the English legal system we separated from in the 1700s. There’s actually more history to our laws than to our country. So to some extent the years of buildup contributing to confusion stem back pretty far into the past. We would have a lot of work ahead of us to reinvent the quirkiness out of the system.

rayiner 6y ago
It helps if you realize that the English legal system developed as an alternative to trial by combat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat. The point isn't to empower judges to make decisions that have the best "ramifications" "to certain people." It's to reach a decision that people who violently disagree about those "ramifications" are nonetheless forced to accept the result because it was reached in accordance with agreed-upon rules. That's why so many decisions come down to careful parsing of words and "technicalities." A case that reaches the Supreme Court will usually have generated intense controversy about what is the more desirable result. Thus, the focus is on reaching a decision that people can't argue with because of scrupulous adherence to rules and doctrines.

_jal 6y ago

> The fact that technicalities have far reaching effects is a sign that the system is broken. I find that an utterly hilarious thing to say in a forum with a large number of highly technical people, and another large number of people who understand complex, nontechnical systems.

chrisoverzero 6y ago

>That is literally all of the SCOTUS rulings. Korematsu v. United States? Brown v. Board of Education? Loving v. Virginia? Obergefell v. Hodges? Roe v. Wade? Dozens of others? I have to assume you mean this batch of rulings, otherwise I can’t comprehend this idea.