4 ms·

> I don't need to. Because this is how the courts are interpreting the law. Make a new one if you don't like it, because bad arguments in court don't change any

> I don't need to. Because this is how the courts are interpreting the law. Make a new one if you don't like it, because bad arguments in court don't change anything. Her arguments comport with the law and its actual intent, how is that a bad argument? I just don’t find your appeal to authority all that compelling, since the consumer welfare standard is a court-created fiction itself, no one “created a new law” to make the courts do that, why would she be held to a different standard than Bork?

stale2002 3y ago
> Her arguments comport with the law No it doesn't. Because that's not what the courts say. And the court system isn't changing anytime soon. > I just don’t find your appeal to authority The courts are quite literally the authority. By definition. They decide. If you don't like it then change the law, get a new court system (hint: this is not very likely), or overthrow the government in a literal revolution. Those are your only 3 options. Complaining about it, or even worse, wasting the court's time with arguments that aren't going to work is worthless and instead a harmful waste of resources. > is a court-created fiction itself All laws are fiction created by people. "The law" is just another way of saying "words written on a piece of paper". The words on the piece of paper are indeed nothing more than fiction. What matters, instead, is how those words are interpreted, used, and enforced by people. Nothing more. Welcome to living in a society. > how is that a bad argument? It is a bad argument because it failed in the court system and will continue to fail. It will fail for decades to come. It will keep failing until the law changes, the courts change their mind (unlikely... 6-3 conservative majority in the supreme court, for decades to come) or the actual revolution happens.

stale2002 3y ago

> Her arguments comport with the law No it doesn't. Because that's not what the courts say. And the court system isn't changing anytime soon. > I just don’t find your appeal to authority The courts are quite literally the authority. By definition. They decide. If you don't like it then change the law, get a new court system (hint: this is not very likely), or overthrow the government in a literal revolution. Those are your only 3 options. Complaining about it, or even worse, wasting the court's time with arguments that aren't going to work is worthless and instead a harmful waste of resources. > is a court-created fiction itself All laws are fiction created by people. "The law" is just another way of saying "words written on a piece of paper". The words on the piece of paper are indeed nothing more than fiction. What matters, instead, is how those words are interpreted, used, and enforced by people. Nothing more. Welcome to living in a society. > how is that a bad argument? It is a bad argument because it failed in the court system and will continue to fail. It will fail for decades to come. It will keep failing until the law changes, the courts change their mind (unlikely... 6-3 conservative majority in the supreme court, for decades to come) or the actual revolution happens.