6 ms·
This is mostly untrue and essentially the point of judges. A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes or misinterpretations of a law.
by smt88 2y ago
This is mostly untrue and essentially the point of judges. A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes or misinterpretations of a law.
- csallen 2y agoI think you're essentially proving the op's point. In your own words, "A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes." In that sentence, "people" === lawyers
- ozim 2y agoI think parent meant that you cannot hack the law because judge will see it and tell you to go away. But I do agree judges are hackable too. It is more hassle to do it right and I hope stupid attempts from Disney will be met with some kind of repercussions.
- csallen 2y agoAh, I see. But I also think that sircastor's point when they said "hackers" was not that lawyers can bypass the intent of the law with impunity. Rather, I think the point was that lawyers will frequently attempt to interpret, use, and even abuse both the letter and the intent of the law in clever ways in order to achieve their goals on behalf of their clients.
- Closi 2y agoOne hack though is to drag out proceedings to cause additional cost, which a judge can limit but not entirely avoid.
- happymellon 2y agoA denial of service?
- codetrotter 2y agoDenial of justice :(
- LgWoodenBadger 2y agoIn the US, if you don’t have money, legal recourse is essentially unavailable to you. Sometimes even if you do have money, finding a lawyer who specializes in your need is often impossible. Imagine if you had to pay, as a victim, for the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators. And find a lawyer who handled “just simple battery” and not only murders. My spouse and I are dealing with this now. It’s awful not being able to get justice.
- dylan604 2y agoThe current SCOTUS would disagree strongly as they are using ridiculous loopholes from the bench
- refulgentis 2y ago[flagged]
- tsimionescu 2y agoTrue, SCOTUS hasn't been using ridiculous loopholes in a few decisions recently. What legal professionals are saying is that they have simply ignored the explicit text and spirit of several laws or the constitution in a few recent decisions, particularly their presidential immunity case.
- pfannkuchen 2y agoI remember thinking as like a 10 year old that it was weird that presidents are immune from prosecution. So it’s definitely not a new thing. Is there something very nuanced about the Supreme Court ruling that I am missing? As with many political issues, online discussion about the topic is mostly screeching, and it’s hard to tell what’s really going on.
- raverbashing 2y agoIt's the other way Discussions about software are (and in most cases) what works best here. But anything else the quality of discussion goes down a lot The funny exception is that sometimes you see a very insightful and relevant comment about a niche subject in a tangential discussion
- Dylan16807 2y agoAre you gonna say what's wrong or just make a big deal out of being disappointed? Or, if you really just mean flippant with no other implications, then software discussion here gets equally flippant all the time.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y agoThe judge can and likely will strike this down, but the damage has been done by that point (delay the procedure and wear the very human opponent down) and I doubt there will be meaningful consequences or compensation for trying.
- knallfrosch 2y agoI believe this is a US case, so the free citizens of this wonderful democratic country can just vote better lawmakers into their parliament at the next election.
- truckerbill 2y agoIronic
- lupusreal 2y agoMost of our lawmakers are lawyers, for who is more qualified to write laws? They write laws that serve the interests of their colleagues. Trust the experts.
- BobaFloutist 2y agoAt least the lawmakers in both of our legislative bodies are democratically elected, unlike the UK which somehow still has hereditary positions in their government in the year 2024.
- cafard 2y agoI thought that only life peers got to vote. Not so?
- sickofparadox 2y agoDon't forget that the UK is one of only two countries in the world that has dedicated positions (26 Lords Spiritual) in their government for members of the state religion. The other country is Iran.
- SkyBelow 2y agoIs that really the case? Judges shut down some loopholes or 'hacks', but then others are allowed as being perfectly acceptable. The rational that decides when one is allowed and one is not seems to be a second level to the hacking. You can't just exploit the law, but find a way to ensure the exploitation is ruled valid. Given judges are people, it does make it more 'squishy' than things on the tech side. Hacks have to appear clever but not insulting, and sometimes you have to fish for the right judge or court to support you, but that is all just the social engineering part of the hacking.