5 ms·

> Law is amazing and much older than programming... And boy does it show. Recent events have me examining The Supreme Court and American law from a programmers

> Law is amazing and much older than programming... And boy does it show. Recent events have me examining The Supreme Court and American law from a programmers perspective. And let me tell you, there are warts: The Supreme Court is comprised of lifelong appointees, mostly in the dwindling twilight of their cognitive ability. This made sense when we didn't understand cognitive decline. Now with the rapid pace of technological progress, it's a joke. To be plain, I don't know of any ICs their age able to keep up. They move up or age out. The whole legal rationalist ideal that you can start from the base principles of the constitution and reason up indefinitely is ridiculous. We programmers have all sorts of tooling to navigate code bases larger than we can readily keep in our heads. That tooling regularly fails us. The best programmers I've worked with regularly hit compiler errors. This all happens in the sterile environment of code. Why should I believe that judges, who can't even agree on whether to interpret the constitution in a modern lens or hold to its writers original intentions, are less susceptible to irrationality or bias or plain incompetence with far less tooling? A lot of modern psychology suggests they can't. For all you programmers out there, read a handful of legal documents. As far as complex logical reasoning goes, it comes off like a kid building a treehouse compared to code for even simple web apps. The legal profession needs to recognize its limitations and catch up with the times. Here are some ideas: - Rigorous, regular cognitive testing after for all licensed legal professionals older than 45. You have to pass a test to drive in old age, but you can sentence someone to life in prison no problem. - Term limits for everyone, everywhere. - In certain cases, law should embrace statistics. Certain cases aren't suited for proposition-like rule based reasoning. Law needs a larger tool chest that can make argument based not on precedent, but on what exists right now in American society.

billyhoffman 4y ago
I understand what you are saying about declining cognitive abilities, and don’t necessarily disagree. However the lifetime appointment of US Supreme Court justices is a purposeful designed feature, not a bug. It is to foster an independent justice branch that is not beholden to the president that appointed them, because the justice can simply “outlast” the presidents term
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > that is not beholden to the president that appointed them, because the justice can simply “outlast” the presidents term And to ensure they aren’t beholden to the guy promising them their next job. Compromise could be you become a nonvoting member of the Court after a certain age. You can ask questions at trial, deliberate with other members, et cetera. But you don’t sign opinions or dissents.
- rgifford 4y ago
  > However the lifetime appointment of US Supreme Court justices is a purposeful designed feature... It was a feature in a time when white men lived, on average, to the ripe old age of 38. I'm tired of treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred. Different time, completely different context. Economics, psychology, and almost all of STEM didn't even exist then. They did not know what they were doing. They got lucky in almost every regard. Keep in mind in all of human history only about 1/4 of violent revolutions are successful, many that "succeeded" left all parties involved much worse off. America, especially in its inception, was an incredible anomaly that far too many paint as something more in the name of American exceptionalism. EDIT: Look, our legislature is a complete and abject failure. It's completely gridlocked, arguably by the design of private interests. If it were working to reflect popular interest, I imagine American law and government would look very different. I don't think any of what I'm suggesting here would be even slightly controversial to be quite honest.
  - d110af5ccf 4y ago
    > a time when white men lived, on average, to the ripe old age of 38 That is a meaningless figure. Those that survived to adulthood had similar lifespans to us. > I'm tired of treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred. This is a common refrain from people who want to change things as they see fit against the wishes of those who disagree with them. If there were broad consensus to change the law as written then presumably the legislature would vote to do so. You are attacking the credibility of the institution rather than admit that something like half of the country doesn't share your views.
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
You misunderstand. Law is about persuasion - which is to say it's a combination of marketing, power plays, intimidation, theatrical performance, bureaucratic procedure, and politics. The logical (verbal) reasoning element is only relevant in those situations where it can be used as a tool of persuasion. It's not the only tool, and it isn't even the most powerful one. It is absolutely nothing like coding in any sense at all. For example - term limits seem like an obvious solution. But how would they be administered? For whose benefit? Who chooses replacements? How often, and in what circumstances? How would recalls and impeachments work? Legislation would have to cover all of those details and more. And the people writing the legislation would be lawyers. Because you can't just wave a hand and say "term limits, yeh?" and expect that to solve anything.
- rgifford 4y ago
  > Law is about persuasion... Yep, we have an adversarial, common law system. So we measure our lawyers on their ability to manipulate regardless of the moral or social outcome. I don't think this is a facet of law in general, so much as a legal system that hasn't grown past ~1790.
  - smitty1e 4y ago
    > a legal system that hasn't grown past ~1790 Technology varies, but the human genome is (effectively) constant. One is skeptical regarding what global improvement is possible. Certainly individual optimizations (maturity) are worth pusuing. But some teleolgical societal endpoint (Progress) that we should pursue could prove a total bugaboo.
- jrm4 4y ago
  100%. Relatedly, this is why I'm ultra-skeptical of just about everything AI is hyped up to be these days. Computers are nowhere near us in terms of being able to synthesize all this stuff and actually doing helpful things for humans in this space.
d110af5ccf 4y ago
> mostly in the dwindling twilight of their cognitive ability Have you actually read SCOTUS trial transcripts? Because they come across as incredibly sharp people to me even when I don't agree with their views. > A lot of modern psychology suggests they can't. Actually there are psychology studies examining professionals who have to deal with bias (scientists, judges, etc) that indicate that the competent ones tend to slightly over rather than under compensate. > Law needs a larger tool chest that can make argument based not on precedent, but on what exists right now in American society. How is that different than legislating from the bench? Isn't updating laws a job best reserved for the legislature?
- rgifford 4y ago
  > Have you actually read SCOTUS trial transcripts? Because they come across as incredibly sharp people to me even when I don't agree with their views. Yes. Get nine professionals together to write a subject matter document over a year. I don't care who they are, that document will appear at least superficially put together. I have lots of thoughts/criticism. This isn't the conversation for that, so here's just one of those criticisms: > Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. Oh no, drug use and prostitution could be licensed too? Obviously those are terrible and morally repugnant. Backtracking is clearly necessary. What? Why? This isn't the 1970s and the nation isn't 100% on board with Reagan and the war on drugs anymore. A majority of Americans support decriminalizing sex work for example. This point IS contentious, but it's treated as though it's self justifying. It so obviously comes from minds trapped in a bygone era where traditionalist values went unquestioned, where appeals to them were enough. > Actually there are psychology studies examining professionals who have to deal with bias (scientists, judges, etc) that indicate that the competent ones tend to slightly over rather than under compensate. I'd love to see these studies. I don't know what over/under compensate means in this context or how that says anything about cognitive decline. > How is that different than legislating from the bench? Isn't updating laws a job best reserved for the legislature? The pace of technological progress is increasing. It has surpassed our legislative ability even under the best of circumstances. We aren't in the best of circumstances. Our legislature hasn't effectively represented popular interests for years now [1]. 1. https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/ https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/
rayiner 4y ago
> The Supreme Court is comprised of lifelong appointees, mostly in the dwindling twilight of their cognitive ability. This made sense when we didn't understand cognitive decline. Now with the rapid pace of technological progress, it's a joke. The Supreme Court is not that old. Only two are in their (early) 70s, and three are in their 50s. John Roberts, the median aged judge, and is about the same age as Bill Gates. And you're wrong about the science. Crystallized intelligence grows with age and is stable into one's 70s. Vocabulary, for example, peaks in one's late 60's and early 70's. https://news.mit.edu/2015/brain-peaks-at-different-ages-0306 https://news.mit.edu/2015/brain-peaks-at-different-ages-0306 Fluid intelligence peaks at age 20, but judges aren't being tested on their ability to solve timed logic puzzles. > The whole legal rationalist ideal that you can start from the base principles of the constitution and reason up indefinitely is ridiculous. I agree it's ridiculous. The Constitution is a rulebook, not a set of principles to use as a starting point. "What would these words have meant to the people who wrote them?" That's how we interpret any other document. It's not hard.
nocoiner 4y ago
> - Rigorous, regular cognitive testing after for all licensed legal professionals older than 45. You have to pass a test to drive in old age, but you can sentence someone to life in prison no problem. Possibly I’m focusing too much on this point as a lawyer in his early 40s, but would it be fair to assume this cognitive testing regime should be applied to all intellectually demanding professions? Like medicine and finance and, say, software engineering? Not sure whether to be alarmed by your proposal and the offhanded way in which you threaten my livelihood, or take solace in the fact that maybe I’ll be exempt from it since I’m a corporate lawyer and can’t sentence anyone to shit. Though, really, mostly I’m amused by it and your serene confidence in making prescriptions about entire fields you seem to have little familiarity with.
smitty1e 4y ago
> mostly in the dwindling twilight of their cognitive ability Very, very difficult to generalize. For every very public zombie one could name, there are plenty who are sharp to their last heartbeat.

billyhoffman 4y ago

I understand what you are saying about declining cognitive abilities, and don’t necessarily disagree. However the lifetime appointment of US Supreme Court justices is a purposeful designed feature, not a bug. It is to foster an independent justice branch that is not beholden to the president that appointed them, because the justice can simply “outlast” the presidents term

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> that is not beholden to the president that appointed them, because the justice can simply “outlast” the presidents term And to ensure they aren’t beholden to the guy promising them their next job. Compromise could be you become a nonvoting member of the Court after a certain age. You can ask questions at trial, deliberate with other members, et cetera. But you don’t sign opinions or dissents.
rgifford 4y ago
> However the lifetime appointment of US Supreme Court justices is a purposeful designed feature... It was a feature in a time when white men lived, on average, to the ripe old age of 38. I'm tired of treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred. Different time, completely different context. Economics, psychology, and almost all of STEM didn't even exist then. They did not know what they were doing. They got lucky in almost every regard. Keep in mind in all of human history only about 1/4 of violent revolutions are successful, many that "succeeded" left all parties involved much worse off. America, especially in its inception, was an incredible anomaly that far too many paint as something more in the name of American exceptionalism. EDIT: Look, our legislature is a complete and abject failure. It's completely gridlocked, arguably by the design of private interests. If it were working to reflect popular interest, I imagine American law and government would look very different. I don't think any of what I'm suggesting here would be even slightly controversial to be quite honest.
- d110af5ccf 4y ago
  > a time when white men lived, on average, to the ripe old age of 38 That is a meaningless figure. Those that survived to adulthood had similar lifespans to us. > I'm tired of treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred. This is a common refrain from people who want to change things as they see fit against the wishes of those who disagree with them. If there were broad consensus to change the law as written then presumably the legislature would vote to do so. You are attacking the credibility of the institution rather than admit that something like half of the country doesn't share your views.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

You misunderstand. Law is about persuasion - which is to say it's a combination of marketing, power plays, intimidation, theatrical performance, bureaucratic procedure, and politics. The logical (verbal) reasoning element is only relevant in those situations where it can be used as a tool of persuasion. It's not the only tool, and it isn't even the most powerful one. It is absolutely nothing like coding in any sense at all. For example - term limits seem like an obvious solution. But how would they be administered? For whose benefit? Who chooses replacements? How often, and in what circumstances? How would recalls and impeachments work? Legislation would have to cover all of those details and more. And the people writing the legislation would be lawyers. Because you can't just wave a hand and say "term limits, yeh?" and expect that to solve anything.

rgifford 4y ago
> Law is about persuasion... Yep, we have an adversarial, common law system. So we measure our lawyers on their ability to manipulate regardless of the moral or social outcome. I don't think this is a facet of law in general, so much as a legal system that hasn't grown past ~1790.
- smitty1e 4y ago
  > a legal system that hasn't grown past ~1790 Technology varies, but the human genome is (effectively) constant. One is skeptical regarding what global improvement is possible. Certainly individual optimizations (maturity) are worth pusuing. But some teleolgical societal endpoint (Progress) that we should pursue could prove a total bugaboo.
jrm4 4y ago
100%. Relatedly, this is why I'm ultra-skeptical of just about everything AI is hyped up to be these days. Computers are nowhere near us in terms of being able to synthesize all this stuff and actually doing helpful things for humans in this space.

d110af5ccf 4y ago

> mostly in the dwindling twilight of their cognitive ability Have you actually read SCOTUS trial transcripts? Because they come across as incredibly sharp people to me even when I don't agree with their views. > A lot of modern psychology suggests they can't. Actually there are psychology studies examining professionals who have to deal with bias (scientists, judges, etc) that indicate that the competent ones tend to slightly over rather than under compensate. > Law needs a larger tool chest that can make argument based not on precedent, but on what exists right now in American society. How is that different than legislating from the bench? Isn't updating laws a job best reserved for the legislature?

rgifford 4y ago
> Have you actually read SCOTUS trial transcripts? Because they come across as incredibly sharp people to me even when I don't agree with their views. Yes. Get nine professionals together to write a subject matter document over a year. I don't care who they are, that document will appear at least superficially put together. I have lots of thoughts/criticism. This isn't the conversation for that, so here's just one of those criticisms: > Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. Oh no, drug use and prostitution could be licensed too? Obviously those are terrible and morally repugnant. Backtracking is clearly necessary. What? Why? This isn't the 1970s and the nation isn't 100% on board with Reagan and the war on drugs anymore. A majority of Americans support decriminalizing sex work for example. This point IS contentious, but it's treated as though it's self justifying. It so obviously comes from minds trapped in a bygone era where traditionalist values went unquestioned, where appeals to them were enough. > Actually there are psychology studies examining professionals who have to deal with bias (scientists, judges, etc) that indicate that the competent ones tend to slightly over rather than under compensate. I'd love to see these studies. I don't know what over/under compensate means in this context or how that says anything about cognitive decline. > How is that different than legislating from the bench? Isn't updating laws a job best reserved for the legislature? The pace of technological progress is increasing. It has surpassed our legislative ability even under the best of circumstances. We aren't in the best of circumstances. Our legislature hasn't effectively represented popular interests for years now [1]. 1. https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/ https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/

rayiner 4y ago

> The Supreme Court is comprised of lifelong appointees, mostly in the dwindling twilight of their cognitive ability. This made sense when we didn't understand cognitive decline. Now with the rapid pace of technological progress, it's a joke. The Supreme Court is not that old. Only two are in their (early) 70s, and three are in their 50s. John Roberts, the median aged judge, and is about the same age as Bill Gates. And you're wrong about the science. Crystallized intelligence grows with age and is stable into one's 70s. Vocabulary, for example, peaks in one's late 60's and early 70's. https://news.mit.edu/2015/brain-peaks-at-different-ages-0306 https://news.mit.edu/2015/brain-peaks-at-different-ages-0306 Fluid intelligence peaks at age 20, but judges aren't being tested on their ability to solve timed logic puzzles. > The whole legal rationalist ideal that you can start from the base principles of the constitution and reason up indefinitely is ridiculous. I agree it's ridiculous. The Constitution is a rulebook, not a set of principles to use as a starting point. "What would these words have meant to the people who wrote them?" That's how we interpret any other document. It's not hard.

nocoiner 4y ago

> - Rigorous, regular cognitive testing after for all licensed legal professionals older than 45. You have to pass a test to drive in old age, but you can sentence someone to life in prison no problem. Possibly I’m focusing too much on this point as a lawyer in his early 40s, but would it be fair to assume this cognitive testing regime should be applied to all intellectually demanding professions? Like medicine and finance and, say, software engineering? Not sure whether to be alarmed by your proposal and the offhanded way in which you threaten my livelihood, or take solace in the fact that maybe I’ll be exempt from it since I’m a corporate lawyer and can’t sentence anyone to shit. Though, really, mostly I’m amused by it and your serene confidence in making prescriptions about entire fields you seem to have little familiarity with.

smitty1e 4y ago

> mostly in the dwindling twilight of their cognitive ability Very, very difficult to generalize. For every very public zombie one could name, there are plenty who are sharp to their last heartbeat.