4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - throw0101b 2y ago
    > So the whole complaining "court strikes down something" is pointless, because the courts function as designed. The courts are judged by humans who have biases and motivated reasoning: * https://www.nycla.org/resource/blog/hon-aileen-cannon-wrote-a-really-bad-decision/ https://www.nycla.org/resource/blog/hon-aileen-cannon-wrote-... * http://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/07/cannon-dismissed-trump-classified-documents/679023/ http://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/... * https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2024/10/11/trump-appointed-federal-court-judge-undercuts-important-legal-tool-used-to-eliminate-health-care-fraud/ https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2024/10/11/trump-appointed-federa... People (judges) sometimes go into court with an pre-conceived notion of what is the 'correct' way to interpret things, and they think it is 'objective', but in fact has been shaped over time by (active) cultural forces: * http://magazine.law.nyu.edu/index.html%3Fp=7606.html http://magazine.law.nyu.edu/index.html%3Fp=7606.html
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - soco 2y ago
      My point was: if there's no law about something I cannot have any expectations from courts, so why there's no law?
      - triceratops 2y ago
        It's really hard to pass a non-budgetary law without a supermajority.
        claytongulick 2y ago
        So the solution is to have the judiciary become defacto legislators?
        triceratops 2y ago
        They're doing that right now. That's what defacto means.
michaelt 2y ago
Perhaps supernova87a thinks the court system is doing a great and highly professional job of enforcing a bad set of laws handed to them by an failing legislature? Much like a professional painter and decorator can demonstrate great care, precision and craftsmanship in applying the paint, even if the customer chose an ugly-ass colour.
- supernova87a 2y ago
  Thanks for your comment, and this is a reply to others who have replied. I wouldn't go so far as to say the courts are doing a great job. But they are doing their job to interpret the laws that have been written. Far more conscientiously than the political branches. Interpretations of the law are yes, sometimes interpretations that may favor one side over another, because laws are not always clear down to the very last edge case or issue that was not anticipated at their writing, and high level principles (sometimes laws have to be at this level) can be interpreted different ways. If that were not true, then you would hardly need a judiciary. That is their role. But to say that the judicial system has been corrupted and is biased, only because in recent years has made more rulings against "my side" when the issue is not clear cut, is to undermine one of the institutions that takes its job relatively seriously. If we adopt this perspective, why are Republican/MAGA opinions that the judicial system is corrupt because they got ruled against so many times, not equally legitimate? Who is to decide that your saying the system is biased is more worthy than theirs? How can we sustain a system where if the rulings go my way, then the system = trustworthy? A key distinguishing aspect of an advanced democratic society (cf. January 2022) is the acceptance of rulings and elections that don't go your way. And that courts rule based on law. Many of the things that laws were originally written for are not covering the situations that are arising now. If you want to make the outcome different, go and change the laws and make it clear what the rules should be. Update them for technology developments, for changes in societal expectations. There is a mechanism for that. And the judiciary will have to adhere to the laws and Constitution to rule on them. Courts are not equipped to be legislative bodies, and if you put that expectation on them, you are changing their scope and role. And not for the better. Judges will get elected for their favoring of one side over another, or to be writing laws while ruling on cases. That's not something I want our democracy or separation of powers system to start doing. And if Congress is broken, that reflects the troubling divisions we have in society -- no court will be able to fix that (without actually corrupting what the courts are for).

by soco 2y ago

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.
- throw0101b 2y ago
  > So the whole complaining "court strikes down something" is pointless, because the courts function as designed. The courts are judged by humans who have biases and motivated reasoning: * https://www.nycla.org/resource/blog/hon-aileen-cannon-wrote-a-really-bad-decision/ https://www.nycla.org/resource/blog/hon-aileen-cannon-wrote-... * http://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/07/cannon-dismissed-trump-classified-documents/679023/ http://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/... * https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2024/10/11/trump-appointed-federal-court-judge-undercuts-important-legal-tool-used-to-eliminate-health-care-fraud/ https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2024/10/11/trump-appointed-federa... People (judges) sometimes go into court with an pre-conceived notion of what is the 'correct' way to interpret things, and they think it is 'objective', but in fact has been shaped over time by (active) cultural forces: * http://magazine.law.nyu.edu/index.html%3Fp=7606.html http://magazine.law.nyu.edu/index.html%3Fp=7606.html
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - soco 2y ago
    My point was: if there's no law about something I cannot have any expectations from courts, so why there's no law?
    - triceratops 2y ago
      It's really hard to pass a non-budgetary law without a supermajority.
      - claytongulick 2y ago
        So the solution is to have the judiciary become defacto legislators?
        triceratops 2y ago
        They're doing that right now. That's what defacto means.

michaelt 2y ago

Perhaps supernova87a thinks the court system is doing a great and highly professional job of enforcing a bad set of laws handed to them by an failing legislature? Much like a professional painter and decorator can demonstrate great care, precision and craftsmanship in applying the paint, even if the customer chose an ugly-ass colour.

supernova87a 2y ago
Thanks for your comment, and this is a reply to others who have replied. I wouldn't go so far as to say the courts are doing a great job. But they are doing their job to interpret the laws that have been written. Far more conscientiously than the political branches. Interpretations of the law are yes, sometimes interpretations that may favor one side over another, because laws are not always clear down to the very last edge case or issue that was not anticipated at their writing, and high level principles (sometimes laws have to be at this level) can be interpreted different ways. If that were not true, then you would hardly need a judiciary. That is their role. But to say that the judicial system has been corrupted and is biased, only because in recent years has made more rulings against "my side" when the issue is not clear cut, is to undermine one of the institutions that takes its job relatively seriously. If we adopt this perspective, why are Republican/MAGA opinions that the judicial system is corrupt because they got ruled against so many times, not equally legitimate? Who is to decide that your saying the system is biased is more worthy than theirs? How can we sustain a system where if the rulings go my way, then the system = trustworthy? A key distinguishing aspect of an advanced democratic society (cf. January 2022) is the acceptance of rulings and elections that don't go your way. And that courts rule based on law. Many of the things that laws were originally written for are not covering the situations that are arising now. If you want to make the outcome different, go and change the laws and make it clear what the rules should be. Update them for technology developments, for changes in societal expectations. There is a mechanism for that. And the judiciary will have to adhere to the laws and Constitution to rule on them. Courts are not equipped to be legislative bodies, and if you put that expectation on them, you are changing their scope and role. And not for the better. Judges will get elected for their favoring of one side over another, or to be writing laws while ruling on cases. That's not something I want our democracy or separation of powers system to start doing. And if Congress is broken, that reflects the troubling divisions we have in society -- no court will be able to fix that (without actually corrupting what the courts are for).