6 ms·

Our legal system is a shambles that is clearly not prepared to handle this kind of thing, even setting aside the situation with the supreme court. It's become

Our legal system is a shambles that is clearly not prepared to handle this kind of thing, even setting aside the situation with the supreme court. It's become clear that the "shadow law" of simply passing unconstitutional statutes, filing frivilous lawsuits, etc., is operating independently of the real legal system moves too slowly and does not have adequate mechanisms to prevent what is essentially a DDoS attack. All justice is delayed and so all justice is denied.

dudefeliciano 1y ago
the comparison to a DDoS attack is very clever. Also in regards to the "muzzle velocity" strategy of Trump/Bannon
- eviks 1y ago
  How does DDOS explain the fact the the Supreme Court didn't deny service, but simply decided not to block an unconstitutional law?
  - dudefeliciano 1y ago
    I dont think OP was referring only to this singular event, this is just a "request" in a much wider DDOS attack.
  - tempodox 1y ago
    Not blocking an unconstitutional law _is_ denial of service by the Supreme Court (although DDoS referred to more than that).
eviks 1y ago
> passing unconstitutional statutes > independently of the real legal system The former is literally the real legal system, nothing shadow about it. Shadow would be some hidden deal to drop charges or something. It's also not DDOS when a huge part of what you call "real" is exactly the same, so not unwillingly overloaded but willingly complicit.
- dudefeliciano 1y ago
  the real legal system is slow by design, to carefully review cases and ensure fairness. It should also be based on good faith. The vulnerability comes from one bad faith party flooding the system with bad faith cases and appeals (as trump is doing). Even when he fails, the process becomes the punishment for the opposing side (journalists, political opponents...). When he wins, he wins.
  - eviks 1y ago
    This continues to make little sense since you continue to ignore that a big % of your made up "real" part of the system also constitutes a part of the bad faith party! > It should also be based on good faith Setting the wishes aside, it isn't, the judges easily act in bad faith when it suits them, so this also doesn't explain much. Neither is it "designed" to take bad faith at face value, again, to be specific - just read the Supreme Court case about this law. The flood/design explain nothing: it would've been just as easy to block the implementation of what the court itself says is an unconstitutional law (see, no "good faith" basis required) and then don't even review it fully because the court has no time (see, the flood can flow in either direction)...
  - hiatus 1y ago
    > The vulnerability comes from one bad faith party flooding the system with bad faith cases and appeals No, this is literally a "both sides" issue. Lawfare is not new. See the continuous legal battles over the second amendment in states like NY, NJ, and CA.
    - dudefeliciano 1y ago
      i was not aware of Biden or Democrat presidents filing personal lawsuits against journalists and politcal opponents...
      - rayiner 1y ago
        Just last week a New York intermediate appellate court overturned the $500 million fraud judgment against Trump: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/21/new-york-civil-fraud-judgment-trump-ruling-00517727 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/21/new-york-civil-frau.... Yes, it wasn't brought by Biden--but it was brought by an elected Democrat Attorney General who campaigned on "going after Trump." Note that, out of the five judge panel, three would have overturned the underlying conviction, while two would have granted a new trial, and one would have thrown the case out entirely: > Two other judges, John Higgitt and Llinét Rosado, said James had the authority to bring the case but argued for giving Trump a new trial. And the fifth judge, Justice David Friedman, argued to throw out the case, saying James lacked the authority to bring it.
hiatus 1y ago
As a gun owner, I can confidently state that the continuous stream of unconstitutional laws that must be constantly fought against is no new development.
- mindslight 1y ago
  Seriously. Never mind when government agents wantonly violate the rights of a gun owner, and the main gun lobbying organization comes out with full-throated support of the government agents. For those that don't know, look up what happened to Kenneth Walker.
- kashunstva 1y ago
  As a non-gun owner, I imagine that much comes down to what the founders meant by the opening clause of the Second Amendment. Since the Originalists claim to hold special insights into the frame of mind of the founders, and this way of thinking seems to be over-represented on the SCOTUS, I would think this a friendly environment for the issue you care about. That aside, isn’t that the way that U.S. political and justice systems are supposed to function? Representatives pass laws at the behest of their most vocal constituents. Then those of opposing ideologies petition the courts for relief or their representatives for repeal.
rayiner 1y ago
> It's become clear that the "shadow law" of simply passing unconstitutional statutes What makes you think the statute is "unconstitutional?" The Supreme Court hasn't tackled the issue directly, but it upheld a law requiring libraries to install blocking software to restrict access to websites for children: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._American_Library_Ass%27n https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._American_Libr.... Remember that, prior to the reinterpretation of the First Amendment in the mid-20th century, the "obscenity" carve-out was broad enough to outright ban things like pornography, much less allowing access to children. That said, I suspect that the law is probably unconstitutional, insofar as it's targets at a type of speech (social media) that doesn't fall within any of the traditional exceptions. I don't think the "under 18" rationale holds when you're talking about content that traditionally hasn't been prohibited to children. Regardless, this isn't an instance of the state blatantly violating some clear Supreme Court precedent. (And even that's okay if you have a good-faith basis for challenging the precedent! That's how impact litigation often works.)
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  What makes you think the current Supreme Court has any interest in upholding the constitution?
  - BrenBarn 1y ago
    The bigger issue though is what makes any of us think that upholding the constitution is upholding justice, right, or any such substantive ideals?
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    It's rayiner. They've got interesting views.

dudefeliciano 1y ago

the comparison to a DDoS attack is very clever. Also in regards to the "muzzle velocity" strategy of Trump/Bannon

eviks 1y ago
How does DDOS explain the fact the the Supreme Court didn't deny service, but simply decided not to block an unconstitutional law?
- dudefeliciano 1y ago
  I dont think OP was referring only to this singular event, this is just a "request" in a much wider DDOS attack.
- tempodox 1y ago
  Not blocking an unconstitutional law _is_ denial of service by the Supreme Court (although DDoS referred to more than that).

eviks 1y ago

> passing unconstitutional statutes > independently of the real legal system The former is literally the real legal system, nothing shadow about it. Shadow would be some hidden deal to drop charges or something. It's also not DDOS when a huge part of what you call "real" is exactly the same, so not unwillingly overloaded but willingly complicit.

dudefeliciano 1y ago
the real legal system is slow by design, to carefully review cases and ensure fairness. It should also be based on good faith. The vulnerability comes from one bad faith party flooding the system with bad faith cases and appeals (as trump is doing). Even when he fails, the process becomes the punishment for the opposing side (journalists, political opponents...). When he wins, he wins.
- eviks 1y ago
  This continues to make little sense since you continue to ignore that a big % of your made up "real" part of the system also constitutes a part of the bad faith party! > It should also be based on good faith Setting the wishes aside, it isn't, the judges easily act in bad faith when it suits them, so this also doesn't explain much. Neither is it "designed" to take bad faith at face value, again, to be specific - just read the Supreme Court case about this law. The flood/design explain nothing: it would've been just as easy to block the implementation of what the court itself says is an unconstitutional law (see, no "good faith" basis required) and then don't even review it fully because the court has no time (see, the flood can flow in either direction)...
- hiatus 1y ago
  > The vulnerability comes from one bad faith party flooding the system with bad faith cases and appeals No, this is literally a "both sides" issue. Lawfare is not new. See the continuous legal battles over the second amendment in states like NY, NJ, and CA.
  - dudefeliciano 1y ago
    i was not aware of Biden or Democrat presidents filing personal lawsuits against journalists and politcal opponents...
    - rayiner 1y ago
      Just last week a New York intermediate appellate court overturned the $500 million fraud judgment against Trump: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/21/new-york-civil-fraud-judgment-trump-ruling-00517727 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/21/new-york-civil-frau.... Yes, it wasn't brought by Biden--but it was brought by an elected Democrat Attorney General who campaigned on "going after Trump." Note that, out of the five judge panel, three would have overturned the underlying conviction, while two would have granted a new trial, and one would have thrown the case out entirely: > Two other judges, John Higgitt and Llinét Rosado, said James had the authority to bring the case but argued for giving Trump a new trial. And the fifth judge, Justice David Friedman, argued to throw out the case, saying James lacked the authority to bring it.

hiatus 1y ago

As a gun owner, I can confidently state that the continuous stream of unconstitutional laws that must be constantly fought against is no new development.

mindslight 1y ago
Seriously. Never mind when government agents wantonly violate the rights of a gun owner, and the main gun lobbying organization comes out with full-throated support of the government agents. For those that don't know, look up what happened to Kenneth Walker.
kashunstva 1y ago
As a non-gun owner, I imagine that much comes down to what the founders meant by the opening clause of the Second Amendment. Since the Originalists claim to hold special insights into the frame of mind of the founders, and this way of thinking seems to be over-represented on the SCOTUS, I would think this a friendly environment for the issue you care about. That aside, isn’t that the way that U.S. political and justice systems are supposed to function? Representatives pass laws at the behest of their most vocal constituents. Then those of opposing ideologies petition the courts for relief or their representatives for repeal.

rayiner 1y ago

> It's become clear that the "shadow law" of simply passing unconstitutional statutes What makes you think the statute is "unconstitutional?" The Supreme Court hasn't tackled the issue directly, but it upheld a law requiring libraries to install blocking software to restrict access to websites for children: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._American_Library_Ass%27n https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._American_Libr.... Remember that, prior to the reinterpretation of the First Amendment in the mid-20th century, the "obscenity" carve-out was broad enough to outright ban things like pornography, much less allowing access to children. That said, I suspect that the law is probably unconstitutional, insofar as it's targets at a type of speech (social media) that doesn't fall within any of the traditional exceptions. I don't think the "under 18" rationale holds when you're talking about content that traditionally hasn't been prohibited to children. Regardless, this isn't an instance of the state blatantly violating some clear Supreme Court precedent. (And even that's okay if you have a good-faith basis for challenging the precedent! That's how impact litigation often works.)

StopDisinfo910 1y ago
What makes you think the current Supreme Court has any interest in upholding the constitution?
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  The bigger issue though is what makes any of us think that upholding the constitution is upholding justice, right, or any such substantive ideals?
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  It's rayiner. They've got interesting views.