3 ms·
FWIW, the Supreme Court doesn't need to understand the Internet to do its job. A judge's job is to understand the law. It is the job of the lawyers to bring fa
by shadowgovt 4y ago
FWIW, the Supreme Court doesn't need to understand the Internet to do its job.
A judge's job is to understand the law. It is the job of the lawyers to bring facts and argumentation before the judges to pursuade them that the law should be interpreted one way or the other. The expertise is expected to live with the lawyers, not the judges (and the ability to find expert witnesses and spin up on the details of what they're advocating is a lawyer skill).
- kube-system 4y agoYes, this is the most frustrating thing about these kind of article titles. Justice Kagan isn't saying "we have no clue what we're doing" she's saying, "I'm not sure you're in the right place"
- corbulo 4y agoIt's really grounded in an anti-adversarial process ideology. Pre-empting it and demanding there should only be one side dictating what is and isn't true. Thats probably overanalyzing a narrative piece for their owners but its what this accumulates to at scale.