6 ms·

I'm concerned about the US Supreme Court's ability to handle a subtle, technical issue tied to new media. They need to take into account all the stakeholders, r

I'm concerned about the US Supreme Court's ability to handle a subtle, technical issue tied to new media. They need to take into account all the stakeholders, rights, law, and the dynamics of social media, and come up with an innovative solution that meets all needs fairly and clearly. I wonder how many there even use social media, and I'm especially concerned that the Court is now oriented toward, and many members selected for, partisanship. They are there to find partisan advantage in rulings, not to be legal geniuses with deep commitment and knowledge of justice and fairness, with deep judicial temperment - there are not there as Solomons. That puts them at a loss for complex issues, expecially unfamiliar ones, though I'm sure they will find a partisan angle. Whatever your politics: The reactionary conservative movement, with its campaign to politicize everything (now working on the FBI and Department of Justice, for example), has permanently degraded the country; we won't have these institutions back for generations. People don't want to face the loss, but it's already happened and continues to worsen before our eyes. EDIT: People who support politicization (or corruption or disinformation or other damaging behavior) argue to normalize it - it's always that way, everyone does it, it's unavoidable, it's 'human nature'. I have warmongers now telling me that it's inevitable human nature. But that's not the case; we can have meaningfully less or more partisanship (especially in courts), corruption, disinformation, and warfare. I can see it with my own eyes now; I was here before 2016, and I know about other places and times and people. It's a bunch of nonsense and everybody knows it. We control our fate, through knowledge and reason, through a collective commitment to good. Our predecessors did it, without the institutions and mechanisms and knowledge they bequeathed to us. With our inheritance couldn't have it easier; what are we bequeathing to the next generation? Despair? Corruption and war? What a shame that would be, with all we were given.

tptacek 4y ago
Our court system routinely handles far more technical issues than online publishing. Like every modern country, we regulate everything from water reclamation to aviation.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  I'm talking about SCOTUS. Can you give examples there? Trial (district) and circuit appealate courts are different - though they also have been politicized to degrees. Regulation is handled in the executive branch. Just because we regulate it, or it's tried in court, doesn't mean it's done well. That's the issue.
  - yladiz 4y ago
    Isn’t regulation (mostly) handled by the legislative branch and enforcement handled by the respective department (sometimes executive)?
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      Those departments are largely executive agencies. The executive branch is supposed to enforce but over time it began to do both. The court is pulling this back now.
      - oneoff786 4y ago
        I’m not sure why I’m getting downvoted here. This is a pretty factual statement. The environmental protection agency, for example, is an executive agency: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...
        wolverine876 4y ago
        You're ignoring half your own statement?
        oneoff786 4y ago
        Which part? That the executive branch is only supposed to enforce but over time has begun to legislate as well? Or the part about the Supreme Court ruling that executive agencies are acting beyond their scope?
xyzzyz 4y ago
What do you mean that it is now oriented towards partisanship? This has been true for at least a century. The recent Dobbs decision is as much the result of partisan efforts to institute policy opposed by the majority of the country as the original Roe decision was. The court has handled complex technical issues many times before. This, along with partisanship, is nothing new.
- jimbob45 4y ago
  Didn’t Dobbs return the decision to the states? Isn’t having the decision decided by majority vote the least partisan thing you can do by definition? If they had truly taken a partisan stance, they would have unilaterally decided to ban abortion based on specious reasoning not unlike Roe.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    I think we all know very well the partisanship involved, despite the theoretical questions (which might be interesting in another context). Majority rule is the most partisan thing.
  - epakai 4y ago
    The decision was (more or less) up to individuals before. A state decision is inherently more partisan.
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      I don't think that most people would agree that anarcholibertarianism (the system which allocates least decisions to state) is the least "partisan" option. That's not what people understand by partisanship.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      I think the person was referring to decision on the legality of abortion, not the decision of having an abortion. Instead of forcing the legality at the federal level it is now at the state level.
jlawson 4y ago
>The reactionary conservative movement, with its campaign to politicize everything I'm sorry but which movement came up with the slogan 'the personal is political'? Which one has entire academic departments dedicated to 'problematizing' everything from the skin color of LOTR orcs to dog walking?
golemotron 4y ago
> I'm concerned about the US Supreme Court's ability to handle a subtle, technical issue tied to new media. They need to take into account all the stakeholders, rights, law, and the dynamics of social media, and come up with an innovative solution that meets all needs fairly and clearly. Nope. That's what legislators do. The Supreme Court's job is to decide whether safe harbor in Section 230 applies to companies when they are exercising editorial control.
farmaway 4y ago
[flagged]
- nobody9999 4y ago
  You're ignoring details and nuance that make a significant difference. Those details and nuanced issues are meaningful. That's not to say there aren't issues (on all sides) with the handling of government documents. There definitely are. But in the specific cases you mentioned, you ignore the details. Are you unaware of those details (if so, please educate yourself. You'll be glad you did) or are you (I'm not claiming that you are, but it's a plausible scenario) intentionally obscuring them?
  - farmaway 4y ago
    And you're ignoring relevant facts and replying with copypasta. If you have an argument to make based on the facts, don't gesture at where the argument might be, just make it.
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      >And you're ignoring relevant facts and replying with copypasta. Which relevant facts and from where, exactly do you think I copy/pasted what I wrote? >If you have an argument to make based on the facts, don't gesture at where the argument might be, just make it. That's exactly what I did. You (essentially) asserted that the issues/backstory surrounding both sets of presidential records are exactly the same. They are not. One person (well, a bunch of folks actually) blatantly lied about inappropriately having such documents and ignored subpoenas for such documents. Another (again, a bunch of folks) immediately notified the relevant folks and returned them (National Archives) when such documents were discovered without being asked or issued subpoenas to do so. While both situations are both disappointing and disturbing, they are very different scenarios. You ignored that nuance. And that was my "argument" and is based in fact. What I want to know is why you ignored the nuance? Facts matter. I'll add that all public officials (regardless of partisan affiliation) should be held to a higher standard than everyone else. This (mostly) hasn't been done because those with a partisan agenda defend their own and only attack their perceived "adversaries." That's wrong, regardless of who does it.
jliptzin 4y ago
Today everyone has instant access to virtually all human knowledge at all times in the palms of their hands yet somehow we are less informed and more susceptible to obvious propaganda than prior generations.
vxNsr 4y ago
Pretending that the court only became politicized in 2016 is the most naive retconning I’ve seen on HN. The progressive movement intentionally politicized the court in the 1960s against the strong warnings of the most ardent conservative the court has ever had. They went on to have a heyday of progressive wins. Now it’s the time for the conservatives’ revenge. Speaking of other institutions that were politicized pre-2016… Obama deputized the IRS against conservative orgs and then had his lackeys destroy the evidence (failed hdds anyone). He used the FBI like his personal police force to go after his strongest political enemies. Pretending for a second that it’s the conservatives who are politicizing anything is just pure alternative history, aka fiction.
- pjc50 4y ago
  > They went on to have a heyday of progressive wins. Now it’s the time for the conservatives’ revenge. I guess that's back to bans on interracial marriage then? (Loving v Virginia 1971) It's certainly .. unfortunate that a lot of America's freedoms for all its citizens have been achieved against the wishes of a lot of its citizens and had to be done through the courts rather than the seriously dysfunctional legislature.
dang 4y ago
Please don't take HN threads on generic political/ideological tangents. It's not what this site is for, it's repetitive, and it invariably turns nasty. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20ideolog%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

tptacek 4y ago

Our court system routinely handles far more technical issues than online publishing. Like every modern country, we regulate everything from water reclamation to aviation.

wolverine876 4y ago
I'm talking about SCOTUS. Can you give examples there? Trial (district) and circuit appealate courts are different - though they also have been politicized to degrees. Regulation is handled in the executive branch. Just because we regulate it, or it's tried in court, doesn't mean it's done well. That's the issue.
- yladiz 4y ago
  Isn’t regulation (mostly) handled by the legislative branch and enforcement handled by the respective department (sometimes executive)?
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    Those departments are largely executive agencies. The executive branch is supposed to enforce but over time it began to do both. The court is pulling this back now.
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      I’m not sure why I’m getting downvoted here. This is a pretty factual statement. The environmental protection agency, for example, is an executive agency: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        You're ignoring half your own statement?
        oneoff786 4y ago
        Which part? That the executive branch is only supposed to enforce but over time has begun to legislate as well? Or the part about the Supreme Court ruling that executive agencies are acting beyond their scope?

xyzzyz 4y ago

What do you mean that it is now oriented towards partisanship? This has been true for at least a century. The recent Dobbs decision is as much the result of partisan efforts to institute policy opposed by the majority of the country as the original Roe decision was. The court has handled complex technical issues many times before. This, along with partisanship, is nothing new.

jimbob45 4y ago
Didn’t Dobbs return the decision to the states? Isn’t having the decision decided by majority vote the least partisan thing you can do by definition? If they had truly taken a partisan stance, they would have unilaterally decided to ban abortion based on specious reasoning not unlike Roe.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  I think we all know very well the partisanship involved, despite the theoretical questions (which might be interesting in another context). Majority rule is the most partisan thing.
- epakai 4y ago
  The decision was (more or less) up to individuals before. A state decision is inherently more partisan.
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    I don't think that most people would agree that anarcholibertarianism (the system which allocates least decisions to state) is the least "partisan" option. That's not what people understand by partisanship.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    I think the person was referring to decision on the legality of abortion, not the decision of having an abortion. Instead of forcing the legality at the federal level it is now at the state level.

jlawson 4y ago

>The reactionary conservative movement, with its campaign to politicize everything I'm sorry but which movement came up with the slogan 'the personal is political'? Which one has entire academic departments dedicated to 'problematizing' everything from the skin color of LOTR orcs to dog walking?

golemotron 4y ago

> I'm concerned about the US Supreme Court's ability to handle a subtle, technical issue tied to new media. They need to take into account all the stakeholders, rights, law, and the dynamics of social media, and come up with an innovative solution that meets all needs fairly and clearly. Nope. That's what legislators do. The Supreme Court's job is to decide whether safe harbor in Section 230 applies to companies when they are exercising editorial control.

farmaway 4y ago

[flagged]

nobody9999 4y ago
You're ignoring details and nuance that make a significant difference. Those details and nuanced issues are meaningful. That's not to say there aren't issues (on all sides) with the handling of government documents. There definitely are. But in the specific cases you mentioned, you ignore the details. Are you unaware of those details (if so, please educate yourself. You'll be glad you did) or are you (I'm not claiming that you are, but it's a plausible scenario) intentionally obscuring them?
- farmaway 4y ago
  And you're ignoring relevant facts and replying with copypasta. If you have an argument to make based on the facts, don't gesture at where the argument might be, just make it.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >And you're ignoring relevant facts and replying with copypasta. Which relevant facts and from where, exactly do you think I copy/pasted what I wrote? >If you have an argument to make based on the facts, don't gesture at where the argument might be, just make it. That's exactly what I did. You (essentially) asserted that the issues/backstory surrounding both sets of presidential records are exactly the same. They are not. One person (well, a bunch of folks actually) blatantly lied about inappropriately having such documents and ignored subpoenas for such documents. Another (again, a bunch of folks) immediately notified the relevant folks and returned them (National Archives) when such documents were discovered without being asked or issued subpoenas to do so. While both situations are both disappointing and disturbing, they are very different scenarios. You ignored that nuance. And that was my "argument" and is based in fact. What I want to know is why you ignored the nuance? Facts matter. I'll add that all public officials (regardless of partisan affiliation) should be held to a higher standard than everyone else. This (mostly) hasn't been done because those with a partisan agenda defend their own and only attack their perceived "adversaries." That's wrong, regardless of who does it.

jliptzin 4y ago

Today everyone has instant access to virtually all human knowledge at all times in the palms of their hands yet somehow we are less informed and more susceptible to obvious propaganda than prior generations.

vxNsr 4y ago

Pretending that the court only became politicized in 2016 is the most naive retconning I’ve seen on HN. The progressive movement intentionally politicized the court in the 1960s against the strong warnings of the most ardent conservative the court has ever had. They went on to have a heyday of progressive wins. Now it’s the time for the conservatives’ revenge. Speaking of other institutions that were politicized pre-2016… Obama deputized the IRS against conservative orgs and then had his lackeys destroy the evidence (failed hdds anyone). He used the FBI like his personal police force to go after his strongest political enemies. Pretending for a second that it’s the conservatives who are politicizing anything is just pure alternative history, aka fiction.

pjc50 4y ago
> They went on to have a heyday of progressive wins. Now it’s the time for the conservatives’ revenge. I guess that's back to bans on interracial marriage then? (Loving v Virginia 1971) It's certainly .. unfortunate that a lot of America's freedoms for all its citizens have been achieved against the wishes of a lot of its citizens and had to be done through the courts rather than the seriously dysfunctional legislature.

dang 4y ago

Please don't take HN threads on generic political/ideological tangents. It's not what this site is for, it's repetitive, and it invariably turns nasty. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20ideolog%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...