6 ms·
Yep. This is why we need constitutional amendments or more foundational laws around privacy that changes this default. Which should be a bipartisan issue, if mo
by anon7000 1y ago
Yep. This is why we need constitutional amendments or more foundational laws around privacy that changes this default. Which should be a bipartisan issue, if money had less influence in politics.
- AnthonyMouse 1y agoThis is the perverse incentives one rather than the money one. The judges want to order people to do things and the judges are the ones who decide if the judges ordering people to do things is constitutional. To prevent that you need Congress to tell them no, but that creates a sort of priority inversion: The machinery designed to stop the government from doing something bad unless there is consensus is then enabling government overreach unless there is consensus to stop it. It's kind of a design flaw. You want checks and balances to stop the government from doing bad things, not enable them.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]