5 ms·

Are you saying that you believe our judicial system is fair and impartial only when it rules in your favor? I vaguely recall a similar sentiment: "the system i

Are you saying that you believe our judicial system is fair and impartial only when it rules in your favor? I vaguely recall a similar sentiment: "the system is been rigged because I didn't win!" Courts rule on laws. If you don't like the laws, go and seek to change them. Don't cast suspicion on our judicial system, one of the reputable institutions that takes the time and effort to study facts and uphold our rights when we need them the most, because it didn't go your way on a topic of net neutrality. NN is hardly a long settled human right that you can declare it an injustice if the US turns out not to apply it in a certain way, and you're turning a ruling on whether the FCC is the proper mechanism for regulation into "the system is corrupted". Consider applying principles of government that don't shoot yourself in the foot if the other side takes power. It's one of the few things that sets us apart from less civilized countries.

newsclues 2y ago
I think that feeling is typical for many, democracy is fair when my team wins or a sports referee is fair when they favour your team. Feeds into the victim narrative when things go the other way.
- AdrianB1 2y ago
  Democracy is not fair, it is "mob rules" by definition.
  - contagiousflow 2y ago
    Democracy is not always populist. People have voted against direct self interest for the benefit for others for quite some time.
  - claytongulick 2y ago
    Good thing the US is a constitutional republic, then. Almost like the founders knew that "mob rules" was a bad idea...
    - InitialLastName 2y ago
      A lot of the framers (if you're going to be a pedant, use the right words) knew that "mob rules" had troublesome implications with respect to the humans they claimed ownership of.
  - newsclues 2y ago
    Would you like to roll back civil rights because they are not fair, because it’s discriminatory and therefore unfair?
snsr 2y ago
The obvious bias of the US Judiciary has resulted in low public confidence - not sure where you've been? https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/01/03/opinion/scotus-ethics-reform-thomas/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/01/03/opinion/scotus-ethics...
soco 2y ago
I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, when their comment stated in the very first line: "court rulings that rarely appear to be in favor of people over companies". But answering your strawman: when you have a bipartisan system with both parties led by companies I don't really have a clue how one can seek to change companies-favoring status quo/laws, but I'm willing to be educated - please help.
- throw0101b 2y ago
  > But answering your strawman: when you have a bipartisan system with both parties led by companies […] One of the parties in the US has been pushing for net neutrality[1][2] and another has been getting rid of it.[3] If you think the two parties are equivalent (on a variety of topics [4][5][6][7]), I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it is not accurate. [1] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/net-neutrality https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/net-neutrality [2] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/11/10/president-obama-urges-fcc-implement-stronger-net-neutrality-rules https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/11/10/preside... [3] https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16771910/trump-fcc-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-repeal https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16771910/trump-fcc-ajit-pai-n... [4] https://aflcio.org/press/releases/donald-trumps-catastrophic-and-devastating-anti-labor-track-record https://aflcio.org/press/releases/donald-trumps-catastrophic... [5] https://cwa-union.org/trumps-anti-worker-record https://cwa-union.org/trumps-anti-worker-record [6] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/02/trump-allies-attack-epa-drinking-water-rules https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/02/trump-al... [7] https://time.com/7201582/donald-trump-vaccines-fact-check-2024/ https://time.com/7201582/donald-trump-vaccines-fact-check-20...
  - soco 2y ago
    Thank you for the links! Then I don't understand something: if this one party supported some topic, any topic, how come said topic is not made into law but only lives in the internal regulations of some organization? Courts applying existing law will then by necessity strike those down, by definition: if it's not in the law it will not be recognized by the courts. Simple. So the whole complaining "court strikes down something" is pointless, because the courts function as designed. I'd say the problem is the parties which don't bother making supporting laws - yes even the parties claiming to support said topic. How can a party holding majorities (in a two party system one party will always have majority) even temporary, not actually make laws? Isn't this the very reason parties exist? So I'm still confused.
AdrianB1 2y ago
>>Courts rule on laws. Not always. They invent laws. They defy laws. They defy common sense. For example "qualified immunity" is invented out of thin air, while "the spirit of Aloha says US Constitution does not apply to Hawai" is defiance. "boneless chicken does not mean it has no bones, but it is a style of cooking" is totally nuts. All the examples are Supreme Courts cases. This is not about winning or losing, it is about judicial system not fair and not impartial, sometimes borderline crazy.
lossolo 2y ago
> "the system is corrupted" "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism."[1] 1. http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materi...
- supernova87a 2y ago
  Yes, of course what you quote is true -- more resources favors large entities and corporations. Similarly for example, the rich versus poor when appearing before the legal system. That is a deep problem of democracy + capitalism. But if the desire is to reduce the influence of money in politics and the weight of corporations in our lives, that is something for Congress and our laws to be modified to do. Similarly to decide to tax, redistribute, or equalize the playing field between rich or poor. You would not have a court decide what tax policy to enact, or what the thresholds of welfare or social security brackets are. Courts are to resolve concrete disputes between individual parties using principles derived from the law, not promulgate new laws. Courts have to treat people and entities coming before them in cases as equal parties, based on their arguments and evidence. If the side of corporations have more resources to pursue cases, hire lawyers, and fabricate evidence, etc. than individuals, then that's something for Congress and laws to fix. Courts are not here to somehow say that when there's a dispute, individual people's arguments take precedence over a corporation's when the law is clear about enumerated rights or regulations. Or to say a general policy principle like "people's rights trump corporations' rights". That is not a justiciable statement. The relative rights of people versus corporations is where laws should lay out those definitions, in the places and applications where the theoretical becomes the real. Not for courts to create novel rights that are not subject to the democratic process and checks/balances on such important questions. Or if they're not specified in the Constitution.
justwool 2y ago
No they don’t say that. Your assumption says more about you.

newsclues 2y ago

I think that feeling is typical for many, democracy is fair when my team wins or a sports referee is fair when they favour your team. Feeds into the victim narrative when things go the other way.

AdrianB1 2y ago
Democracy is not fair, it is "mob rules" by definition.
- contagiousflow 2y ago
  Democracy is not always populist. People have voted against direct self interest for the benefit for others for quite some time.
- claytongulick 2y ago
  Good thing the US is a constitutional republic, then. Almost like the founders knew that "mob rules" was a bad idea...
  - InitialLastName 2y ago
    A lot of the framers (if you're going to be a pedant, use the right words) knew that "mob rules" had troublesome implications with respect to the humans they claimed ownership of.
- newsclues 2y ago
  Would you like to roll back civil rights because they are not fair, because it’s discriminatory and therefore unfair?

snsr 2y ago

The obvious bias of the US Judiciary has resulted in low public confidence - not sure where you've been? https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/01/03/opinion/scotus-ethics-reform-thomas/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/01/03/opinion/scotus-ethics...

soco 2y ago

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, when their comment stated in the very first line: "court rulings that rarely appear to be in favor of people over companies". But answering your strawman: when you have a bipartisan system with both parties led by companies I don't really have a clue how one can seek to change companies-favoring status quo/laws, but I'm willing to be educated - please help.

throw0101b 2y ago
> But answering your strawman: when you have a bipartisan system with both parties led by companies […] One of the parties in the US has been pushing for net neutrality[1][2] and another has been getting rid of it.[3] If you think the two parties are equivalent (on a variety of topics [4][5][6][7]), I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it is not accurate. [1] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/net-neutrality https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/net-neutrality [2] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/11/10/president-obama-urges-fcc-implement-stronger-net-neutrality-rules https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/11/10/preside... [3] https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16771910/trump-fcc-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-repeal https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16771910/trump-fcc-ajit-pai-n... [4] https://aflcio.org/press/releases/donald-trumps-catastrophic-and-devastating-anti-labor-track-record https://aflcio.org/press/releases/donald-trumps-catastrophic... [5] https://cwa-union.org/trumps-anti-worker-record https://cwa-union.org/trumps-anti-worker-record [6] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/02/trump-allies-attack-epa-drinking-water-rules https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/02/trump-al... [7] https://time.com/7201582/donald-trump-vaccines-fact-check-2024/ https://time.com/7201582/donald-trump-vaccines-fact-check-20...
- soco 2y ago
  Thank you for the links! Then I don't understand something: if this one party supported some topic, any topic, how come said topic is not made into law but only lives in the internal regulations of some organization? Courts applying existing law will then by necessity strike those down, by definition: if it's not in the law it will not be recognized by the courts. Simple. So the whole complaining "court strikes down something" is pointless, because the courts function as designed. I'd say the problem is the parties which don't bother making supporting laws - yes even the parties claiming to support said topic. How can a party holding majorities (in a two party system one party will always have majority) even temporary, not actually make laws? Isn't this the very reason parties exist? So I'm still confused.

AdrianB1 2y ago

>>Courts rule on laws. Not always. They invent laws. They defy laws. They defy common sense. For example "qualified immunity" is invented out of thin air, while "the spirit of Aloha says US Constitution does not apply to Hawai" is defiance. "boneless chicken does not mean it has no bones, but it is a style of cooking" is totally nuts. All the examples are Supreme Courts cases. This is not about winning or losing, it is about judicial system not fair and not impartial, sometimes borderline crazy.

lossolo 2y ago

> "the system is corrupted" "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism."[1] 1. http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materi...

supernova87a 2y ago
Yes, of course what you quote is true -- more resources favors large entities and corporations. Similarly for example, the rich versus poor when appearing before the legal system. That is a deep problem of democracy + capitalism. But if the desire is to reduce the influence of money in politics and the weight of corporations in our lives, that is something for Congress and our laws to be modified to do. Similarly to decide to tax, redistribute, or equalize the playing field between rich or poor. You would not have a court decide what tax policy to enact, or what the thresholds of welfare or social security brackets are. Courts are to resolve concrete disputes between individual parties using principles derived from the law, not promulgate new laws. Courts have to treat people and entities coming before them in cases as equal parties, based on their arguments and evidence. If the side of corporations have more resources to pursue cases, hire lawyers, and fabricate evidence, etc. than individuals, then that's something for Congress and laws to fix. Courts are not here to somehow say that when there's a dispute, individual people's arguments take precedence over a corporation's when the law is clear about enumerated rights or regulations. Or to say a general policy principle like "people's rights trump corporations' rights". That is not a justiciable statement. The relative rights of people versus corporations is where laws should lay out those definitions, in the places and applications where the theoretical becomes the real. Not for courts to create novel rights that are not subject to the democratic process and checks/balances on such important questions. Or if they're not specified in the Constitution.

justwool 2y ago

No they don’t say that. Your assumption says more about you.