3 ms·
What an incredible miscarriage of justice. Make enough money and pay off enough politicians, and you can pretty much shoot people on the street in broad dayligh
by ocdtrekkie 1mo ago
What an incredible miscarriage of justice. Make enough money and pay off enough politicians, and you can pretty much shoot people on the street in broad daylight.
- dgellow 1mo ago[flagged]
- Petersipoi 1mo agoJust to make sure I'm understanding, you're saying that Google payed someone (presumably Trump), who then went and convinced a Clinton appointed judge who has ruled against Trump in the past to give the case to Google? Is that actually what you think?
- dgellow 1mo agoI do not no, I don’t have an opinion on the Google situation. I was responding to the following: > Make enough money and pay off enough politicians, and you can pretty much shoot people on the street in broad daylight.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- strictnein 1mo agoAssuming you read the ruling, what do you disagree with the judge on? What politicians were paid off to make a judge in a lifelong position who has served for decades rule in Google's favor?
- shakna 1mo agoWhat ruling? It isn't released yet. We have declining to breakup, based on behavioral remedies, and zero details.
- strictnein 1mo agoKind of my point. How does one know something is a miscarriage of justice if you haven't read the ruling? Because you don't like the outcome?
- mortoc 1mo agoI don't think it's a stretch to see a systemic pattern of big tech avoiding consequences that leave the rest of us in the power of monopolies. Regardless of the content of this ruling, it's another brick in the wall.
- strictnein 1mo agoA separate discussion for sure, but simply seeing a headline and declaring it an "incredible miscarriage of justice" seems a little far fetched. For example, many times the courts will point out that the laws need to be updated, which would be in the ruling. Or that a law as written is unconstitutional but it could be made so with some changes. That stuff doesn't make the headlines though, just the "Courts rules for/against X". Ideally we'd have a legislative branch that would look at these rulings and update our laws, but their disinterest in doing so isn't the courts' fault.
- webdood90 1mo ago[flagged]
- mpalczewski 1mo agoA legitimately rule based legal system is far more beneficial than one that takes sides based on the taste of the day. beneficial for everyone involved. If you want to write "Stan for billionaires", without any sort of reasoning, well, that says more about you.
- webdood90 1mo ago
- unrented7977 1mo ago[flagged]
- pampas 1mo agoIt's the modern "Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel". I think it's why outdoor advertising is so rife. It's hard to fight something when you rely on it to keep your position.