4 ms·
Covid will be long gone in 100 years. But you know what might not be gone: the precedents we’re creating today. Introducing a show-your-papers culture where we
by mrfusion 5y ago
Covid will be long gone in 100 years. But you know what might not be gone: the precedents we’re creating today. Introducing a show-your-papers culture where we once had a free and open society.
- ok123456 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts This was 116 years ago.
- wyager 5y agoThe US Supreme Court is not the ultimate moral authority. You’re responding to a comment addressing the abstract long-term consequences of a policy with a specific legal determination saying the policy didn’t happen to violate US law.
- ok123456 5y agoAt some point, society has to reach a decision so it can function. You can't just throw your hands up in the air waiting for some higher power with a clearer moral standing to show up and do something universally morally unambiguous. We use the court system as a way of resolving conflicts where there are competing interests and arguments to be made. The Supreme Court had a similar situation happen 116 years ago, and they found that the public health interests outweighed the competing arguments.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pdog 5y agoThe Supreme Court upheld concentration camps 76 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States
- ok123456 5y agoIs the process going to get every decision right? No. And they will from time-to-time revisit arguments. Korematsu v. US was overturned by the subsequent ruling Trump v. Hawaii. Jacobson v. Massachusetts has been used as the basis for 116 years worth of cases where public health has to be weighed against other factors, and is not in he same precarious position as Korematsu v. US. What's the alternative method for making decisions when there are competing legal arguments?
- dredmorbius 5y agoThe point beginning this thread was that some set of extraordinary precedent was being set today. ok123456 provided compelling evidence that this is not the case. You are now failing to accept the point made, and changing the argument.
- pb7 5y agoYou have to "show your papers" to go to school. It's likely been like that for longer than you've been alive.