3 ms·

This 7 year old, wonderful article "Data is a Toxic Asset", wasnt couched at all in term of nation state aggressors against the population (which seems to be th

This 7 year old, wonderful article "Data is a Toxic Asset", wasnt couched at all in term of nation state aggressors against the population (which seems to be the sad sad sad new low brought about by a horrific politicalized biased supreme court and extemist states): but keeps becoming more and more and more and more true the more the state drags us into their ideological anti-liberty hell. Especially vis-a-vie the new conservative lead activist court, which has been undoing & repealing individual & personal rights at a prodiguous rate, holding any data is dangerous, is a risk. Everything we could be trying to use & understand about ourselves is now a hazard, under the eyes of a pernicious, vicious, angry state. [1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_toxic.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_tox... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11273356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11273356 (160points, 6 years, 65 comments)

catalyst5a 4y ago
I don’t follow supreme court decisions very closely, but what other significant cases have they overturned since gaining a conservative majority?
- jimmygrapes 4y ago
  None. It's just hyperbole based in a lack of understanding of civics.
- logifail 4y ago
  > gaining a conservative majority Q: When would one say that happened? Is there somewhere one can track which side (although I hate to use that phrase) has had a majority over which period?
  - catalyst5a 4y ago
    > Q: When would one say that happened? Under Trump’s presidency, since he appointed three justices. The most significant shift was in 2020, when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away and was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barret. Ginsburg was one of the most liberal justices. Supreme court justice’s are non-partisan and don’t represent a political party, but they generally reflect the beliefs and ideology of the president who appoints them in their interpretation of the role of the constitution. e.g. originalism vs. a living document. > Is there somewhere one can track which side (although I hate to use that phrase) has had a majority over which period? That’s a good question, that would be a helpful resource. This seems like a good place to start: https://www.allsides.com/blog/how-supreme-court-ideology-has-shifted-over-time-ketanji-brown-jackson https://www.allsides.com/blog/how-supreme-court-ideology-has...
    - upsidesinclude 4y ago
      Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not in favor of Roe vs Wade. This seems like an important distinction given your comment. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsbur...
      - catalyst5a 4y ago
        Fair enough. I’m aware of her comments on Roe vs. Wade, I just didn’t think it was relevant. She was a liberal justice who was replaced with a conservative justice. I’m curious what her stance would be if she was still on the court. Despite her comments, I don’t believe she would have overturned it.
      - UncleMeat 4y ago
        She was critical of the structure of the decision but her voting record indicated clearly that she would not have voted to overturn it.
        upsidesinclude 4y ago
        She disagreed with the constitutionality of the decision. Not with the premise of abortion. For her not to overturn it would be a pretty significant compromise of integrity. The fact that something can be unconstitutional does not mean the same thing is illegal. It is not of federal jurisdiction to set the precedent on the matter. Every pro-abortionist seems to casually brush aside the fact that this has more to do with federal power than abortion
    - logifail 4y ago
      > Under Trump’s presidency, since he appointed three justices (As one of my teachers once said to me) I was expecting a slightly fully answer :) (Disclosure: I don't live in the US) Don't we at least have to look at who was replaced and what their voting record was? It seems simplistic to say that any justice appointed by a President in party X is strictly supportive of X's policy. What would that mean anyway, since from the outside it seems there are a fairly broad range of policies and view on major issues inside each of the two parties...? In the UK there's TheyWorkForYou[0] where you can search for your political representative and get a quick overview on how they vote by policy area, and a deeper list of voting record on individual votes grouped by topic. You can find MPs inside one party with wildly different voting records. Is there something like this for the US Supreme Court? If not, why not? I know it's fictional, but I'm thinking of The West Wing S05E17 "The Supremes" and the scene towards the end in the Roosevelt Room[1] in which it turns out that pigeonholing people isn't quite as straightforward as we might think. [0] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supremes_(The_West_Wing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supremes_(The_West_Wing)
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  The eventually overturning of Roe v Wade was long expected even by liberal judges like Ginsburg, not for political reasons but because the tortured reasoning of the original decision was difficult to defend in a consistent system of jurisprudence. The same reasoning could be used to undermine many other legal matters that people generally believe to be correct and good. Even though I am a pro-choice liberal, I recognize that Roe v Wade was a poor decision and approve its overturning on that basis.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
upsidesinclude 4y ago
You are incorrect on a number of points here and seem to be guided by your political viewpoint. As mentioned in other comments as well, the feelings you have toward an issue do not have any bearing on the legal foundation or constitutionality of the case. The federal government does not have the authority make every decision and such is reflected in the correct ruling. States can decide where they will draw the line. Constantly there is this voice of anti-reason, that fails to recognize jurisdiction and jurisprudence. This is a country of law and order. You are not the arbiter of law by virtue of your position on 'justice'

catalyst5a 4y ago

I don’t follow supreme court decisions very closely, but what other significant cases have they overturned since gaining a conservative majority?

jimmygrapes 4y ago
None. It's just hyperbole based in a lack of understanding of civics.
logifail 4y ago
> gaining a conservative majority Q: When would one say that happened? Is there somewhere one can track which side (although I hate to use that phrase) has had a majority over which period?
- catalyst5a 4y ago
  > Q: When would one say that happened? Under Trump’s presidency, since he appointed three justices. The most significant shift was in 2020, when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away and was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barret. Ginsburg was one of the most liberal justices. Supreme court justice’s are non-partisan and don’t represent a political party, but they generally reflect the beliefs and ideology of the president who appoints them in their interpretation of the role of the constitution. e.g. originalism vs. a living document. > Is there somewhere one can track which side (although I hate to use that phrase) has had a majority over which period? That’s a good question, that would be a helpful resource. This seems like a good place to start: https://www.allsides.com/blog/how-supreme-court-ideology-has-shifted-over-time-ketanji-brown-jackson https://www.allsides.com/blog/how-supreme-court-ideology-has...
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not in favor of Roe vs Wade. This seems like an important distinction given your comment. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsbur...
    - catalyst5a 4y ago
      Fair enough. I’m aware of her comments on Roe vs. Wade, I just didn’t think it was relevant. She was a liberal justice who was replaced with a conservative justice. I’m curious what her stance would be if she was still on the court. Despite her comments, I don’t believe she would have overturned it.
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      She was critical of the structure of the decision but her voting record indicated clearly that she would not have voted to overturn it.
      - upsidesinclude 4y ago
        She disagreed with the constitutionality of the decision. Not with the premise of abortion. For her not to overturn it would be a pretty significant compromise of integrity. The fact that something can be unconstitutional does not mean the same thing is illegal. It is not of federal jurisdiction to set the precedent on the matter. Every pro-abortionist seems to casually brush aside the fact that this has more to do with federal power than abortion
  - logifail 4y ago
    > Under Trump’s presidency, since he appointed three justices (As one of my teachers once said to me) I was expecting a slightly fully answer :) (Disclosure: I don't live in the US) Don't we at least have to look at who was replaced and what their voting record was? It seems simplistic to say that any justice appointed by a President in party X is strictly supportive of X's policy. What would that mean anyway, since from the outside it seems there are a fairly broad range of policies and view on major issues inside each of the two parties...? In the UK there's TheyWorkForYou[0] where you can search for your political representative and get a quick overview on how they vote by policy area, and a deeper list of voting record on individual votes grouped by topic. You can find MPs inside one party with wildly different voting records. Is there something like this for the US Supreme Court? If not, why not? I know it's fictional, but I'm thinking of The West Wing S05E17 "The Supremes" and the scene towards the end in the Roosevelt Room[1] in which it turns out that pigeonholing people isn't quite as straightforward as we might think. [0] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supremes_(The_West_Wing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supremes_(The_West_Wing)
jandrewrogers 4y ago
The eventually overturning of Roe v Wade was long expected even by liberal judges like Ginsburg, not for political reasons but because the tortured reasoning of the original decision was difficult to defend in a consistent system of jurisprudence. The same reasoning could be used to undermine many other legal matters that people generally believe to be correct and good. Even though I am a pro-choice liberal, I recognize that Roe v Wade was a poor decision and approve its overturning on that basis.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

upsidesinclude 4y ago

You are incorrect on a number of points here and seem to be guided by your political viewpoint. As mentioned in other comments as well, the feelings you have toward an issue do not have any bearing on the legal foundation or constitutionality of the case. The federal government does not have the authority make every decision and such is reflected in the correct ruling. States can decide where they will draw the line. Constantly there is this voice of anti-reason, that fails to recognize jurisdiction and jurisprudence. This is a country of law and order. You are not the arbiter of law by virtue of your position on 'justice'