4 ms·

I hope courts find a way and the spine to tell them they're not valid. The government usually has a strong presumption of regularity but more and more courts ar

by rtkwe 8mo ago

I hope courts find a way and the spine to tell them they're not valid. The government usually has a strong presumption of regularity but more and more courts are recognizing they're no longer a fair participant and will abuse the courts to get their way and are dropping that presumption.

JoshTriplett 8mo ago
> I hope courts find a way and the spine to tell them they're not valid. I hope courts go further and find them in contempt, or engaging in something akin to barratry, or otherwise abusing the legal system.
- rtkwe 8mo ago
  I mean more is better here for sure.
throwawayq3423 8mo ago
Good faith by the federal government can no longer be assumed. Donald Trump's real legacy is not any single action, but a complete inversion of trust of the US government by its citizens. And the world.
- GaryBluto 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - malcolmgreaves 8mo ago
    Wrong. Stop both sides-ing this. What the republicans have been doing is nothing at all like what the democrats have done. All of the work of making Americans distrust their government from the executive in the last 60 years have come from Republicans: Nixon, Regan, Bush, and now Trump.
    - GaryBluto 8mo ago
      The concept of "both-sidesism" is a thought-terminating cliché that attempts to be a more reasonable sounding way of saying that one side is holy and the other is sinful that was invented on social media platforms for propaganda purposes. > What the republicans have been doing is nothing at all like what the democrats have done. All of the work of making Americans distrust their government from the executive in the last 60 years have come from Republicans Many examples have been given in this post's comments alone and are already well-known by the average HN user, such as: 1. The Snowden Leaks (Obama) 2. The Pentagon Papers (exposed under Nixon, describes actions under Kennedy and Johnson administration) 3. The IRS Targeting Controversy (Obama) 4. DOJ Surveillance of Journalists (Obama)
      - throwaway173738 8mo ago
        No, it’s an attempt to weigh the actions of either side in aggregate. What you’re doing is trying to argue that everything is awful and so why bother. I’ve seen numerous examples of one group acting well-meaning and sincere, and numerous examples of the other group taking advantage and sewing chaos. If you think they’re both the same you’re either not paying attention to everything or you only care about a very few things. Either way it’s going to be impossible for me to find common ground with you as long as you refuse to try to work with what you’ve got.
        GaryBluto 8mo ago
        > What you’re doing is trying to argue that everything is awful and so why bother. I don't know how that could be construed from my comments. > Either way it’s going to be impossible for me to find common ground with you as long as you refuse to try to work with what you’ve got. If I don't agree with you you won't agree with me? This isn't a revelation.
      - malcolmgreaves 8mo ago
        To the three points you list: Number 1 was Bush. The republicans crated the NSA surveillance machine. Number 2 — know your US history. The democratic and republican parties flipped philosophies in 68. Their dems went pro integration and the southern dems went to the Republican Party, which remained segregationist. Nixon was closer to Kennedy and LBJ than Humphrey. Number 3 is nothing - it wasn’t active targeting. They implemented rules to check all organizations. The republican affiliates ones were skirting the rules. They looked at orgs with certain things in their name, but it was an investigation. No government action came of it. It was not abuse. This is another lie by the republicans.
  - throwaway173738 8mo ago
    Because for all of the issues I take with Obama over Snowden, there were also attempts to keep promises and maintain stability and order within the country. Say what you will but there were no literal masked thugs kidnapping people at gunpoint under Obama. With many things you have to weigh a person’s actions in balance, and in balance Trump is way way way way way way worse than Obama.
  - mindslight 8mo ago
    I lost faith that the government would respect my right to privacy with Binney, Klein, and Snowden. I then lost faith that the government wouldn't go out of its way to openly attack and subjugate me with Turmp. A pattern of escalation is still escalation. But to anybody only just waking up to this unaccountable surveillance-industrial complex now: Welcome! While I wish you had been with us after Snowden, I am glad you are here now.
- salawat 8mo ago
  When Europeans wonder why the U.S. is so backwards and barbaric about not implementing a National ID scheme. Look no further, ladies and gents, because at least once every 200 years, the population has a day of supreme brain off and puts someone like Trump in office. Once that happens, you too will appreciate why it should be hard for the government to do things.
  - tempodox 8mo ago
    Sadly, a National ID scheme is by far not the only way the U.S. is backwards and barbaric.
  - throwawayq3423 8mo ago
    europeans are well versed in the consequences of autocratic takeover of their governments, why they pretend to not know even recent history of the 20th century, I'll never understand.
  - johnnyanmac 8mo ago
    I'm American. I'm not against national ID. The issue is with the US is that ID is not free. I just had to pay 50 bucks to renew my driver's license. renewing a passport was 150 dollars the last time I checked (which was 2021). So any more costs just to function in society is a major impact to quite a few rights. The most hot topic being voter eligibility. this is foreign to EU because, to my knowledge, getting an ID is free.

by rtkwe 8mo ago

JoshTriplett 8mo ago

> I hope courts find a way and the spine to tell them they're not valid. I hope courts go further and find them in contempt, or engaging in something akin to barratry, or otherwise abusing the legal system.

rtkwe 8mo ago
I mean more is better here for sure.

throwawayq3423 8mo ago

Good faith by the federal government can no longer be assumed. Donald Trump's real legacy is not any single action, but a complete inversion of trust of the US government by its citizens. And the world.

GaryBluto 8mo ago
[flagged]
- malcolmgreaves 8mo ago
  Wrong. Stop both sides-ing this. What the republicans have been doing is nothing at all like what the democrats have done. All of the work of making Americans distrust their government from the executive in the last 60 years have come from Republicans: Nixon, Regan, Bush, and now Trump.
  - GaryBluto 8mo ago
    The concept of "both-sidesism" is a thought-terminating cliché that attempts to be a more reasonable sounding way of saying that one side is holy and the other is sinful that was invented on social media platforms for propaganda purposes. > What the republicans have been doing is nothing at all like what the democrats have done. All of the work of making Americans distrust their government from the executive in the last 60 years have come from Republicans Many examples have been given in this post's comments alone and are already well-known by the average HN user, such as: 1. The Snowden Leaks (Obama) 2. The Pentagon Papers (exposed under Nixon, describes actions under Kennedy and Johnson administration) 3. The IRS Targeting Controversy (Obama) 4. DOJ Surveillance of Journalists (Obama)
    - throwaway173738 8mo ago
      No, it’s an attempt to weigh the actions of either side in aggregate. What you’re doing is trying to argue that everything is awful and so why bother. I’ve seen numerous examples of one group acting well-meaning and sincere, and numerous examples of the other group taking advantage and sewing chaos. If you think they’re both the same you’re either not paying attention to everything or you only care about a very few things. Either way it’s going to be impossible for me to find common ground with you as long as you refuse to try to work with what you’ve got.
      - GaryBluto 8mo ago
        > What you’re doing is trying to argue that everything is awful and so why bother. I don't know how that could be construed from my comments. > Either way it’s going to be impossible for me to find common ground with you as long as you refuse to try to work with what you’ve got. If I don't agree with you you won't agree with me? This isn't a revelation.
    - malcolmgreaves 8mo ago
      To the three points you list: Number 1 was Bush. The republicans crated the NSA surveillance machine. Number 2 — know your US history. The democratic and republican parties flipped philosophies in 68. Their dems went pro integration and the southern dems went to the Republican Party, which remained segregationist. Nixon was closer to Kennedy and LBJ than Humphrey. Number 3 is nothing - it wasn’t active targeting. They implemented rules to check all organizations. The republican affiliates ones were skirting the rules. They looked at orgs with certain things in their name, but it was an investigation. No government action came of it. It was not abuse. This is another lie by the republicans.
- throwaway173738 8mo ago
  Because for all of the issues I take with Obama over Snowden, there were also attempts to keep promises and maintain stability and order within the country. Say what you will but there were no literal masked thugs kidnapping people at gunpoint under Obama. With many things you have to weigh a person’s actions in balance, and in balance Trump is way way way way way way worse than Obama.
- mindslight 8mo ago
  I lost faith that the government would respect my right to privacy with Binney, Klein, and Snowden. I then lost faith that the government wouldn't go out of its way to openly attack and subjugate me with Turmp. A pattern of escalation is still escalation. But to anybody only just waking up to this unaccountable surveillance-industrial complex now: Welcome! While I wish you had been with us after Snowden, I am glad you are here now.
salawat 8mo ago
When Europeans wonder why the U.S. is so backwards and barbaric about not implementing a National ID scheme. Look no further, ladies and gents, because at least once every 200 years, the population has a day of supreme brain off and puts someone like Trump in office. Once that happens, you too will appreciate why it should be hard for the government to do things.
- tempodox 8mo ago
  Sadly, a National ID scheme is by far not the only way the U.S. is backwards and barbaric.
- throwawayq3423 8mo ago
  europeans are well versed in the consequences of autocratic takeover of their governments, why they pretend to not know even recent history of the 20th century, I'll never understand.
- johnnyanmac 8mo ago
  I'm American. I'm not against national ID. The issue is with the US is that ID is not free. I just had to pay 50 bucks to renew my driver's license. renewing a passport was 150 dollars the last time I checked (which was 2021). So any more costs just to function in society is a major impact to quite a few rights. The most hot topic being voter eligibility. this is foreign to EU because, to my knowledge, getting an ID is free.