6 ms·

Insofar as I see it, the Court lost its credibility since Dred Scott.

by cocacola1 5y ago

refurb 5y ago
Human institutions aren’t perfect? Throw them all out!
- cocacola1 5y ago
  As soon as there's a better option, certainly.
- johnnyanmac 5y ago
  I feel like "impartial AI judge" is at least the top 3 most common sci-fi topics. I've yet to see a work that puts such a concept in a good light. Even if humans are prone to corruption, the theoretical point of a judicial system is to deal with the edge cases that are never clear cut.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    The irony of this line of argument is that an “impartial AI judge” never would have created Roe in the first place. A computer wouldn’t conjure up a right to abortion that’s not expressly listed in the constitution from a right to privacy that’s also not expressly listed in the constitution but is instead conjured up from the “penumbras” of listed rights. Only a human would do such a thing.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      The Constitution was explicitly not a “here are your rights, and only these ones” document. The Ninth Amendment states: > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
      - rayiner 5y ago
        Sure—but those other rights must still exist and come from somewhere. Where does the right to abortions until viability come from?
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        The same place my right to pick my nose, eat creme brulee, and hug my kids come from. It doesn't have to be written down for it to be one.
        vanattab 5y ago
        But you don't have an inaliable right to creme brulee do you? If the FDA/Congress decides dairy should no longer be sold or consumed in the USA then they can pass a rule/law and it would almost certainly be upheld as constitutional. All the politicians might get thrown out by the cheese lovers in the next election. But it would be perfectly legal. The constitution I think is referring to other rights established in English common law previously?
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        Unenumerated rights are implied, inferred, etc. The right to vote, for example, isn't actually in the Constitution (eligibility is left to the States, and various amendments only forbid certain types of discrimination in eligibility), but everyone agrees it exists to some extent. Similarly, a right to privacy of some level is generally considered to stem from the Fourth Amendment. The right to freedom of movement is inferred from the Privileges and Immunities Clause. An attempt by the FDA to ban dairy would likely meet Constitutional challenges, and I'd expect SCOTUS to find some way to deem it a legislative overreach. English common law has meaning in the US because of State-level actions, not Federal/Constitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute (Entertainingly, this means oddities like theoretically having the right to trial by combat in Virginia.)
        5y ago
  - tbrownaw 5y ago
    The "smart contract" stuff from the cryptocoin crowd is more-or-less an attempt at actually doing the "impartial AI judge" thing. I suppose it'll be interesting to see if they get it sufficiently free of bugs and surprise edge cases that it's useful for more than enthusiasts or people doing sketchy things. But it seems to be getting closer to the point where we can say AI judges are generally unwise based on real experiment rather than on thought experiment. (Assuming it turns out the way I expect.)

Insofar as I see it, the Court lost its credibility since Dred Scott.

refurb 5y ago

Human institutions aren’t perfect? Throw them all out!

cocacola1 5y ago
As soon as there's a better option, certainly.
johnnyanmac 5y ago
I feel like "impartial AI judge" is at least the top 3 most common sci-fi topics. I've yet to see a work that puts such a concept in a good light. Even if humans are prone to corruption, the theoretical point of a judicial system is to deal with the edge cases that are never clear cut.
- rayiner 5y ago
  The irony of this line of argument is that an “impartial AI judge” never would have created Roe in the first place. A computer wouldn’t conjure up a right to abortion that’s not expressly listed in the constitution from a right to privacy that’s also not expressly listed in the constitution but is instead conjured up from the “penumbras” of listed rights. Only a human would do such a thing.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    The Constitution was explicitly not a “here are your rights, and only these ones” document. The Ninth Amendment states: > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      Sure—but those other rights must still exist and come from somewhere. Where does the right to abortions until viability come from?
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        The same place my right to pick my nose, eat creme brulee, and hug my kids come from. It doesn't have to be written down for it to be one.
        vanattab 5y ago
        But you don't have an inaliable right to creme brulee do you? If the FDA/Congress decides dairy should no longer be sold or consumed in the USA then they can pass a rule/law and it would almost certainly be upheld as constitutional. All the politicians might get thrown out by the cheese lovers in the next election. But it would be perfectly legal. The constitution I think is referring to other rights established in English common law previously?
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        Unenumerated rights are implied, inferred, etc. The right to vote, for example, isn't actually in the Constitution (eligibility is left to the States, and various amendments only forbid certain types of discrimination in eligibility), but everyone agrees it exists to some extent. Similarly, a right to privacy of some level is generally considered to stem from the Fourth Amendment. The right to freedom of movement is inferred from the Privileges and Immunities Clause. An attempt by the FDA to ban dairy would likely meet Constitutional challenges, and I'd expect SCOTUS to find some way to deem it a legislative overreach. English common law has meaning in the US because of State-level actions, not Federal/Constitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute (Entertainingly, this means oddities like theoretically having the right to trial by combat in Virginia.)
        5y ago
- tbrownaw 5y ago
  The "smart contract" stuff from the cryptocoin crowd is more-or-less an attempt at actually doing the "impartial AI judge" thing. I suppose it'll be interesting to see if they get it sufficiently free of bugs and surprise edge cases that it's useful for more than enthusiasts or people doing sketchy things. But it seems to be getting closer to the point where we can say AI judges are generally unwise based on real experiment rather than on thought experiment. (Assuming it turns out the way I expect.)