3 ms·

> the law Would be nice!!! However, as is easy to see from recent, well known examples, the results of our legal system depend heavily on personal attitudes,

> the law Would be nice!!! However, as is easy to see from recent, well known examples, the results of our legal system depend heavily on personal attitudes, predilections, and opinions of individual judges, lawyers, etc., and, net, "the law" is inconsistent, unpredictable, unreliable (some might say emotional and irrational), often too slow, too expensive, and a source not of justice or "the law" but of lawfare battles, war by special means. As in shooting wars, both sides lose. E.g., can see Dershowitz to Newsmax: Boasberg Should Be Held in Contempt at https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-james-boasberg-illegal-alien/2025/04/16/id/1207195/ https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-james-boa... where Judge Boasberg and Emeritus Harvard Law Professor Dershowitz strongly disagree. For another example, one part of this Boasberg case had the SCOTUS rule 5-4 -- that is inconsistent and unpredictable. In math, physical science, and now often in biology and medical science, we have many examples of one things, clear, explicit, highly predictable -- the Pythagorean theorem, Einstein's Special Relativity, protein folding, Phase III trials, placebo controlled, randomized, double blind. But, in strong contrast, "the law" is unpredictable, in each case, no "one thing", closer to medieval ugly torture and nonsense than math, science, technology, etc. of 2025. The law profession should be ashamed. "Your Honor"? Not really. As I understand the situation, the SCOTUS is created by our Constitution, but the rest of our legal system, including Judge Boasberg, is the creation of and funded by Congress. So, Congress can cut off the funds and maybe just abolish Boasberg's court. My guess is that the media has raised attention, the voters want something better in our legal system, and soon Congress will make some changes. With also the POTUS, the legal system, "the law", currently widely less liked than a skunk at a garden party, can be turned inside out, fumigated, disinfected, bleached, scrubbed, washed, rinsed, hung out to dry, stitched, patched, ironed, folded, and used as, hmm, a seat cushion. Sorry 'bout that. As a startup founder, my view is, at any or all costs, to stay low, quiet, out of sight, and anonymous, have only an LLC and never a corporation, and be far from any entanglements with "the law".

boroboro4 1y ago
“The law” has ways of finding you when you least expect it. I have a friend who is in jail for last year for nothing-burger (in other country). I think perceiving laws at the US as unpredictable is just showing that you haven’t seen countries with truly dysfunctional judicial. Of course justice can be tricky. Of course courts can be flawed. It’s a spectrum, and we’re not at the worst spot in it so far (maybe apart from SC, SC is terrible). I’m not sure what’s a point of federal courts being creation of Congress (ie laws) and not creation of constitution. Most of the executive branch is creation of Congress too. The nicety of laws and courts you can (by yourself) go and read courts opinions and arguments and made your own judgements who’s at fault - executive branch ignoring laws and stressing the system with bad faith behavior, or courts deciding unjustly by reading laws wrongly. I did this for bunch of court opinions and don’t expect good faith from the administration anymore.
- graycat 1y ago
  "administration"? I avoided that. I was commenting in general terms. "countries with truly dysfunctional judicial" I suspect that much of how people get along in such a country is just to pay enough to the right persons. As a joke, that would often be faster and cheaper than following the US system fully honestly. I'm reminded of the movie where, given a problem, someone could go to Vito and get a solution -- he had "all the judges and politicians in his pocket". The role of Congress: The SCOTUS is from the Constitution, and all the rest are from Congress. If Congress sees a problem with those courts, it can fix it right away -- impeach a judge, cut off their funds, abolish their court, etc. Just because our legal system is not the worst possible in the world does not mean that we should tolerate its faults.

boroboro4 1y ago

“The law” has ways of finding you when you least expect it. I have a friend who is in jail for last year for nothing-burger (in other country). I think perceiving laws at the US as unpredictable is just showing that you haven’t seen countries with truly dysfunctional judicial. Of course justice can be tricky. Of course courts can be flawed. It’s a spectrum, and we’re not at the worst spot in it so far (maybe apart from SC, SC is terrible). I’m not sure what’s a point of federal courts being creation of Congress (ie laws) and not creation of constitution. Most of the executive branch is creation of Congress too. The nicety of laws and courts you can (by yourself) go and read courts opinions and arguments and made your own judgements who’s at fault - executive branch ignoring laws and stressing the system with bad faith behavior, or courts deciding unjustly by reading laws wrongly. I did this for bunch of court opinions and don’t expect good faith from the administration anymore.

graycat 1y ago
"administration"? I avoided that. I was commenting in general terms. "countries with truly dysfunctional judicial" I suspect that much of how people get along in such a country is just to pay enough to the right persons. As a joke, that would often be faster and cheaper than following the US system fully honestly. I'm reminded of the movie where, given a problem, someone could go to Vito and get a solution -- he had "all the judges and politicians in his pocket". The role of Congress: The SCOTUS is from the Constitution, and all the rest are from Congress. If Congress sees a problem with those courts, it can fix it right away -- impeach a judge, cut off their funds, abolish their court, etc. Just because our legal system is not the worst possible in the world does not mean that we should tolerate its faults.