5 ms·

Because the trend on HN is to be reddit-tier absurd and hyperbolic when it comes to the US Supreme Court.

kelnos 2y ago
That may be true in a general sense, but how do you figure, in this particular case? It seems entirely likely to me that SCOTUS will overturn this NY law, based on their actions over the past several years. Maybe they won't, and that would be great, but I think it's likely they will.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  Regarding this specific case, I personally have no idea. I've had many times where I thought a suit wouldn't hold up in court, only to find that there was a sensible legal precedent for it to hold up (at least in terms of "yeah, this rule exists, so following the rule makes sense"). I've also had the opposite too, so overall I genuinely have no prediction on how the court will rule. Even the article itself kind of shows that the outcome isn't clear, seems like some judges think there is a legal basis for NY's law, others think that ISPs might be able to make a stronger argument. I'm not even sure if the court will rule at all, since unless I'm mixing up the way things work between different countries, the US Supreme Court gets to pick which cases it considers to be worth taking.
azemetre 2y ago
I can’t blame them. This is the same court that removed rights from half of Americans and tends to be extremely pro corporation. Not too mention the bribery that some members engage in and an unwillingness to abide by any ethical standards. Then you read that certain members of SCOTUS want to abolish OSHA. At some point you don’t get to claim to be nonpartisan when you rule by partisan lines.
- exe34 2y ago
  > same court that removed rights from half of Americans when laws are made out of Congress, they can be struck down out of Congress. if it's important enough, ask your representatives and senators to turn it into a proper law.
  - azemetre 2y ago
    It’s really hard to advocate for this when one side is a deliberate bad actor that refuses to legislate. It is a great political strategy tho. Use the courts to tell a do nothing Congress to pass legislation.
    - krapp 2y ago
      That isn't the strategy. The strategy is to encourage gridlock in Congress, stack the courts and legislate through them by proxy.
    - exe34 2y ago
      do not confuse lethargy with strategy. (Sir Humphrey)
  - p_j_w 2y ago
    I agree. Why the hell do we need the 1st Amendment anyway?!
    - exe34 2y ago
      exactly, because the first amendment was passed by SCOTUS after all.
- GenerWork 2y ago
  >Not too mention the bribery that some members engage in and an unwillingness to abide by any ethical standards. I agree. The behavior that Justice Sotomayors staff have exhibited in regards to prodding public institutions to buy her books (a practice that has earned her over $3 million since she was appointed to the court) is downright shameful.
  - azemetre 2y ago
    Yeah, it was shocking to learn that SCOTUS doesn't have an independent ethics board. It was last year where they declared they will police themselves, which they don't seem capable of doing. At least Congress has an independent nonpartisan ethics board.
consteval 2y ago
I don't understand how this is, at all, hyperbolic. It's very clear and obvious, regardless of your political affiliation, that this court: 1. is extremely conservative 2. plays fast and loose with precedent 3. has an originalist stance to the constitution, at least when convenient to conservative political stances There're multiple landmark cases demonstrating this. To me, this isn't even a political opinion - it's just the clear and evident truth of how this court operates.

That may be true in a general sense, but how do you figure, in this particular case? It seems entirely likely to me that SCOTUS will overturn this NY law, based on their actions over the past several years. Maybe they won't, and that would be great, but I think it's likely they will.

dotnet00 2y ago
Regarding this specific case, I personally have no idea. I've had many times where I thought a suit wouldn't hold up in court, only to find that there was a sensible legal precedent for it to hold up (at least in terms of "yeah, this rule exists, so following the rule makes sense"). I've also had the opposite too, so overall I genuinely have no prediction on how the court will rule. Even the article itself kind of shows that the outcome isn't clear, seems like some judges think there is a legal basis for NY's law, others think that ISPs might be able to make a stronger argument. I'm not even sure if the court will rule at all, since unless I'm mixing up the way things work between different countries, the US Supreme Court gets to pick which cases it considers to be worth taking.

azemetre 2y ago

I can’t blame them. This is the same court that removed rights from half of Americans and tends to be extremely pro corporation. Not too mention the bribery that some members engage in and an unwillingness to abide by any ethical standards. Then you read that certain members of SCOTUS want to abolish OSHA. At some point you don’t get to claim to be nonpartisan when you rule by partisan lines.

exe34 2y ago
> same court that removed rights from half of Americans when laws are made out of Congress, they can be struck down out of Congress. if it's important enough, ask your representatives and senators to turn it into a proper law.
- azemetre 2y ago
  It’s really hard to advocate for this when one side is a deliberate bad actor that refuses to legislate. It is a great political strategy tho. Use the courts to tell a do nothing Congress to pass legislation.
  - krapp 2y ago
    That isn't the strategy. The strategy is to encourage gridlock in Congress, stack the courts and legislate through them by proxy.
  - exe34 2y ago
    do not confuse lethargy with strategy. (Sir Humphrey)
- p_j_w 2y ago
  I agree. Why the hell do we need the 1st Amendment anyway?!
  - exe34 2y ago
    exactly, because the first amendment was passed by SCOTUS after all.
GenerWork 2y ago
>Not too mention the bribery that some members engage in and an unwillingness to abide by any ethical standards. I agree. The behavior that Justice Sotomayors staff have exhibited in regards to prodding public institutions to buy her books (a practice that has earned her over $3 million since she was appointed to the court) is downright shameful.
- azemetre 2y ago
  Yeah, it was shocking to learn that SCOTUS doesn't have an independent ethics board. It was last year where they declared they will police themselves, which they don't seem capable of doing. At least Congress has an independent nonpartisan ethics board.

consteval 2y ago

I don't understand how this is, at all, hyperbolic. It's very clear and obvious, regardless of your political affiliation, that this court: 1. is extremely conservative 2. plays fast and loose with precedent 3. has an originalist stance to the constitution, at least when convenient to conservative political stances There're multiple landmark cases demonstrating this. To me, this isn't even a political opinion - it's just the clear and evident truth of how this court operates.