3 ms·

I implore people to think about separation of powers. Just because something is desirable in the abstract doesn’t mean the judiciary should be doing it. Who de

by rayiner 1mo ago

I implore people to think about separation of powers. Just because something is desirable in the abstract doesn’t mean the judiciary should be doing it. Who decides what information is “accurate?” What are the implications of having the judiciary start policing the other two branches over such a fuzzy concept?

elcritch 1mo ago
Congress is supposed to be the forum wherein this happens. It's intentionally a broader forum of people's representatives from the entire nation. If congress can't agree to a law then the federal government probably shouldn't be doing it, even if something is desirable.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- pstuart 1mo ago
  Congress has been intentionally neutered to cede power to the republican executive branch. This November will be interesting...
  - elcritch 1mo ago
    Be careful of blind partnership. Both parties have been increasingly guilty of this in recent decades. The republican party internal dynamics are just the most recent. Even then Trump has been loosing his grip on the republicans in congress. It's slight but there. IMHO thats for the best.
icedrift 1mo ago
"Who decides what information is “accurate?”" Previously agencies. Now everything bubbles up to the supreme court.
- pstuart 1mo ago
  Phew, now I feel better. The Roberts court has been a paragon of impartial justice and I know they will make the right call for the people /s
gpvos 1mo ago
To be sure, there's a good discussion to be had about this, whether it should be the parliament or the judiciary that can rule over this, or both, and different countries have different balances in this area. Generally speaking however, the law and especially the constitution is full of abstract and fuzzy concepts, and judges have ample experience in adjudicating those, as well as balancing them against each other. And don't come to me with alt-right reasoning about what is accurate, true or false. Basic truth isn't too hard to determine. The main thing is that there should be checks and balances, especially on the executive branch, and currently the US is dismantling them in bulk.
- rayiner 1mo ago
  > And don't come to me with alt-right reasoning about what is accurate, true or false. Basic truth isn't too hard to determine. This isn't some newfangled "alt-right reasoning." Orwell criticized the "Ministry of Truth" half a century ago. More fundamentally, it reflects the U.S. Founders' axiomatic understanding that nobody can be trusted. They did not create a system where lawyers and judges are the "microkernel of the operating system," being trusted to perform critical functions such as "enforcing the law" and "deciding basic truths." Indeed, in the Founders' system, individuals can't even sue the government except in narrow circumstances with the government's consent.
  - gpvos 1mo ago
    Wow. If that is true, the US is an even more weird and unreliable country to live in than I thought, and I thank the Lord that I live in Europe.
    - rayiner 1mo ago
      Yes, it’s the european model rooted in Prussian imperial bureaucracy versus the American model rooted in the wisdom of the crowds. You’re welcome to like your approach better. But our approach has an impeccable track record.
      - 1mo ago
brookst 1mo ago
There’s a map/territory error in conflating the right to accurate information (or the obligation of government officials to not knowingly lie) with court determination of what accurate information is in any specific case. We have a very clear constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and yes, determining what that means is very fuzzy and always has been. Doesn’t make the right evaporate. But even separating the two, the entire court system is literally designed to determine what’s true. From murder to false advertising, the courts exist to resolve disputes about what’s true. If we’re saying they can’t or shouldn’t fulfill that role… what’s left? Just enforce the will of the current government, skipping all that stuff about testimony and fact-finding?
- rayiner 1mo ago
  Fact-finding is a subsidiary function of courts that is cabined by two important principles. First, there must be a cause of action: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cause_of_action https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cause_of_action. Courts cannot just go fact-finding on their own. Common law or statute must have articulated a specific set of factual conditions that gives rise to a legal claim for relief. So courts can engage in fact-finding, but only within very specific guardrails outlined in the laws that govern the cause of action. Second, courts must avoid intruding into the work of the political branches: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/political_question_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/political_question_doctrine. You can't turn to the courts to adjudicate what facts are "accurate" in the context of a political debate.
  - brookst 1mo ago
    Sure, agreed on both counts. But to the extent government officials have a duty not to lie to the public, that duty extends to facts, not political opinions. I find the courts a perfectly reasonable way to adjucate e.g. the actual water volume in the Colorado river.
iAMkenough 1mo ago
Who decides what is slander or defamation?
tzs 1mo ago
I believe that "accurate" in this context means "not knowingly a lie" rather than "is objectively correct". The allegation is that city officials knew the water was not safe to drink but told residents that it was safe.
_DeadFred_ 1mo ago
Who decides if I committed a crime by lieing/telling inaccurate information to the FBI? Oh, the courts do you say? If they can police me over such a fuzzy concept, they can police themselves as well. https://www.dougmurphylaw.com/criminal-defense/federal-crimes/federal-crimes-faq/consequences-of-lying-to-fbi https://www.dougmurphylaw.com/criminal-defense/federal-crime... The federal courts are going to be surprised when their 'there is no law, just enforcement we want on the plebs' results in juries made up of plebs stop approving the unfairly applied to some people convictions the feds want. It's basically the last recourse we have. 'enforce the law correctly and fairly, or we the people will stop enforcing it at all'.

by rayiner 1mo ago

elcritch 1mo ago

Congress is supposed to be the forum wherein this happens. It's intentionally a broader forum of people's representatives from the entire nation. If congress can't agree to a law then the federal government probably shouldn't be doing it, even if something is desirable.

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
pstuart 1mo ago
Congress has been intentionally neutered to cede power to the republican executive branch. This November will be interesting...
- elcritch 1mo ago
  Be careful of blind partnership. Both parties have been increasingly guilty of this in recent decades. The republican party internal dynamics are just the most recent. Even then Trump has been loosing his grip on the republicans in congress. It's slight but there. IMHO thats for the best.

icedrift 1mo ago

"Who decides what information is “accurate?”" Previously agencies. Now everything bubbles up to the supreme court.

pstuart 1mo ago
Phew, now I feel better. The Roberts court has been a paragon of impartial justice and I know they will make the right call for the people /s

gpvos 1mo ago

To be sure, there's a good discussion to be had about this, whether it should be the parliament or the judiciary that can rule over this, or both, and different countries have different balances in this area. Generally speaking however, the law and especially the constitution is full of abstract and fuzzy concepts, and judges have ample experience in adjudicating those, as well as balancing them against each other. And don't come to me with alt-right reasoning about what is accurate, true or false. Basic truth isn't too hard to determine. The main thing is that there should be checks and balances, especially on the executive branch, and currently the US is dismantling them in bulk.

rayiner 1mo ago
> And don't come to me with alt-right reasoning about what is accurate, true or false. Basic truth isn't too hard to determine. This isn't some newfangled "alt-right reasoning." Orwell criticized the "Ministry of Truth" half a century ago. More fundamentally, it reflects the U.S. Founders' axiomatic understanding that nobody can be trusted. They did not create a system where lawyers and judges are the "microkernel of the operating system," being trusted to perform critical functions such as "enforcing the law" and "deciding basic truths." Indeed, in the Founders' system, individuals can't even sue the government except in narrow circumstances with the government's consent.
- gpvos 1mo ago
  Wow. If that is true, the US is an even more weird and unreliable country to live in than I thought, and I thank the Lord that I live in Europe.
  - rayiner 1mo ago
    Yes, it’s the european model rooted in Prussian imperial bureaucracy versus the American model rooted in the wisdom of the crowds. You’re welcome to like your approach better. But our approach has an impeccable track record.
    - 1mo ago

brookst 1mo ago

There’s a map/territory error in conflating the right to accurate information (or the obligation of government officials to not knowingly lie) with court determination of what accurate information is in any specific case. We have a very clear constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and yes, determining what that means is very fuzzy and always has been. Doesn’t make the right evaporate. But even separating the two, the entire court system is literally designed to determine what’s true. From murder to false advertising, the courts exist to resolve disputes about what’s true. If we’re saying they can’t or shouldn’t fulfill that role… what’s left? Just enforce the will of the current government, skipping all that stuff about testimony and fact-finding?

rayiner 1mo ago
Fact-finding is a subsidiary function of courts that is cabined by two important principles. First, there must be a cause of action: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cause_of_action https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cause_of_action. Courts cannot just go fact-finding on their own. Common law or statute must have articulated a specific set of factual conditions that gives rise to a legal claim for relief. So courts can engage in fact-finding, but only within very specific guardrails outlined in the laws that govern the cause of action. Second, courts must avoid intruding into the work of the political branches: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/political_question_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/political_question_doctrine. You can't turn to the courts to adjudicate what facts are "accurate" in the context of a political debate.
- brookst 1mo ago
  Sure, agreed on both counts. But to the extent government officials have a duty not to lie to the public, that duty extends to facts, not political opinions. I find the courts a perfectly reasonable way to adjucate e.g. the actual water volume in the Colorado river.

iAMkenough 1mo ago

Who decides what is slander or defamation?

tzs 1mo ago

I believe that "accurate" in this context means "not knowingly a lie" rather than "is objectively correct". The allegation is that city officials knew the water was not safe to drink but told residents that it was safe.

_DeadFred_ 1mo ago

Who decides if I committed a crime by lieing/telling inaccurate information to the FBI? Oh, the courts do you say? If they can police me over such a fuzzy concept, they can police themselves as well. https://www.dougmurphylaw.com/criminal-defense/federal-crimes/federal-crimes-faq/consequences-of-lying-to-fbi https://www.dougmurphylaw.com/criminal-defense/federal-crime... The federal courts are going to be surprised when their 'there is no law, just enforcement we want on the plebs' results in juries made up of plebs stop approving the unfairly applied to some people convictions the feds want. It's basically the last recourse we have. 'enforce the law correctly and fairly, or we the people will stop enforcing it at all'.