6 ms·

The idea that the government can enact laws which allow them to create secret programs/law, then allow the justice system to secretly rule on the laws is monstr

The idea that the government can enact laws which allow them to create secret programs/law, then allow the justice system to secretly rule on the laws is monstrous. It's as if the government can only audit itself, not external entity (the populous for example) can not review their practices. Even if this judge ruled this way, the judge above can simply overturn it. To be honest, I am against ever striking, forming/joining a union, or ever going to a rally. I feel strongly about things, share my thoughts and hope someone listens (and obviously vote), but I think this is the most ashamed I have ever been at being a citizen of a country or a human being in general. This is the only judge that has ruled this way, and I have seen plenty of other cases where the judge ruled in the opposing direction. For the first time I feel going out and protesting may be the only option (especially if this ruling is overturned).

apalmer 13y ago
--To be honest, I am against ever striking, forming/joining a union, or ever going to a rally. Aside, but why? I am too lazy to do such things myself, and I know many who don't see the need as things are good enough as they are from their perspective, but i think this is the first time i have seen an 'ideological' opposition to striking, unions, or rallying.
- lettergram 13y ago
  I am against wasting my time. I think protests are a huge time sync and in the end there will be likely nothing to show for it. Benjamin Franklin had it right when he wrote Poor Richard's Almanack, things can be achieved with a pen or a gun, holding picket signs with ~500 people outside the white house is a daily (or at least once a month) occurrence. Don't get me wrong, I would protest if I thought I could (with the help of others) achieve something, say if 30,000 people protested I could attend that if I felt strongly. The problem I have is I've never felt strong enough, nor have I ever seen a protest successful in my lifetime. The country would need to have at least several million protesters (enough to shut down the economy) to make a large impact to effect the surveillance state (at least from what I have seen).
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    What about unions? You realize that many of the benefits we have today - such as two-day weekends - are a direct result of the union movement, right?
    - mkr-hn 13y ago
      And workplace safety standards. One could reasonably say most employers who grew up post-union would still favor safety, but the cultural change came from unions, and it can slide back easily.
    - lettergram 13y ago
      I am strongly against unions, I understand organizing to achieve a cause. The issue I have with unions is it became a political game and lead to several major companies running into major financial troubles because of it. Take for example GM or any other major car manufacturer in the U.S. 50 years ago the main reason Toyota was able to gobble up so much of the market was because the U.S. automakers HAD to give the unions what they wanted because the government stepped in when they would strike. Leading to outrageous pensions, 6 hour work days, etc. Organizing to improve working conditions makes sense, but the U.S. government stepping in to FORCE employers to meet standards that the union sets is a bit out outrageous to me. If you're doing manual labor and replaceable it's mighty hard to unionize without the government support, I understand that. Unfortunately, because you are replaceable you don't have pull and SHOULD NOT have pull. If a companies working conditions are really that dangerous you can work in another factory or educate yourself and become skilled enough to be worth while to please. Not to mention, if it is that dangerous most people probably wont work in that line of work unless they have no choice, in which case they should be HAPPY to have that dangerous job because they can eat. Call me calloused, but I would personally rather work a dangerous job and get food, as opposed to robbing my employer. We both earn our keep (the employer and me) and the market sets the price for my work. I am nothing more than a cog in the machine that is the economy.
      - josh2600 13y ago
        You're not calloused, you're just wrong, IMHO. Having to work a dangerous job is almost always a result of cutting corners in ways that are ultimately negatively impacting on the aggregate economy. What you're doing when you provide a dangerous work environment is saying that it's ok for employees to get injured. When they're injured they probably can't work for the company anymore, and so that company is socializing the cost of their healthcare. The public bears the risk of the enterprise, and the private organization enjoys only the upside; hardly an equitable social arrangement. In your example of GM, I would actually argue that the unions were not the ultimate cause of the failure of American automobiles, but rather a lack of vision, innovation and competitiveness against the Asian manufacturers. One could also say that dividending endlessly despite failing competitively was a lack of leadership, but the failure was one stemming from a lack of revenue, not an outlandish cost structure. It's true that the unions were getting too much, but that's hardly why GM had to get bailed out. You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a draconian view of the world, IMHO. We don't need to work like that anymore; having dangerous jobs doesn't help advance the economy and in fact actually harms the aggregate economic output. To be clear, this is just my opinion, you might disagree, but I hope we can engage in civil discussion about this very interesting topic :).
area51org 13y ago
This is the only judge that has ruled this way The problem may be that this ruling could be taken as having set a precedent. IANAL, but I do know that judicial precedents are huge in the legal system, and can be the basis for years of subsequent rulings.
- MWil 13y ago
  The court that this came out of has zero ability to set precedent (I mean other than that they decided a case that may go on to set precedent later). Federal district courts are like state trial courts. These judges can pretty much do all sorts of things and we don't really care because they'll get fixed hopefully by the appeals courts. The appeals courts are the first line of actual precedent but only for those courts that are below them (federal appeals - only binding on lower courts in the same circuit, state appeals - only binding on the lower courts of that state). Appeals courts are not binding upon other appeals courts and usually the US Supreme Court doesn't like to get involved unless it's so clearly unconstitutional or if there is a circuit split where some have gone one way and some have gone completely another (because the federal system is supposed to be much more uniform than than the individual states).
  - D9u 13y ago
    Thanks for spelling it out for me like that. I just hope that enough of us are complaining to everyone who will listen that the spy apparatchik is reined in to be constitutionally acceptable to "We the People."
    - MWil 13y ago
      No problem and I should point out that I was being cynical when I said "we don't really care" with regards to trial/district courts. The sad truth is if you want to take someone to court or if you are taken to court, if you really want to be satisfied you better be prepared from the outset to go through at least two trials (one to develop the record and one or more to attack/uphold the record). You literally could get a judge at the lowest level that decides he's going to rule based on how he feels that day although you'd like to think not.
rmrfrmrf 13y ago
Did you even read the article? This is a huge win. You're just spouting rhetoric without taking the time to celebrate this massive victory!
- MWil 13y ago
  calling this a huge win and a massive victory wouldn't be much better, but it is a very respectable start

apalmer 13y ago

--To be honest, I am against ever striking, forming/joining a union, or ever going to a rally. Aside, but why? I am too lazy to do such things myself, and I know many who don't see the need as things are good enough as they are from their perspective, but i think this is the first time i have seen an 'ideological' opposition to striking, unions, or rallying.

lettergram 13y ago
I am against wasting my time. I think protests are a huge time sync and in the end there will be likely nothing to show for it. Benjamin Franklin had it right when he wrote Poor Richard's Almanack, things can be achieved with a pen or a gun, holding picket signs with ~500 people outside the white house is a daily (or at least once a month) occurrence. Don't get me wrong, I would protest if I thought I could (with the help of others) achieve something, say if 30,000 people protested I could attend that if I felt strongly. The problem I have is I've never felt strong enough, nor have I ever seen a protest successful in my lifetime. The country would need to have at least several million protesters (enough to shut down the economy) to make a large impact to effect the surveillance state (at least from what I have seen).
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  What about unions? You realize that many of the benefits we have today - such as two-day weekends - are a direct result of the union movement, right?
  - mkr-hn 13y ago
    And workplace safety standards. One could reasonably say most employers who grew up post-union would still favor safety, but the cultural change came from unions, and it can slide back easily.
  - lettergram 13y ago
    I am strongly against unions, I understand organizing to achieve a cause. The issue I have with unions is it became a political game and lead to several major companies running into major financial troubles because of it. Take for example GM or any other major car manufacturer in the U.S. 50 years ago the main reason Toyota was able to gobble up so much of the market was because the U.S. automakers HAD to give the unions what they wanted because the government stepped in when they would strike. Leading to outrageous pensions, 6 hour work days, etc. Organizing to improve working conditions makes sense, but the U.S. government stepping in to FORCE employers to meet standards that the union sets is a bit out outrageous to me. If you're doing manual labor and replaceable it's mighty hard to unionize without the government support, I understand that. Unfortunately, because you are replaceable you don't have pull and SHOULD NOT have pull. If a companies working conditions are really that dangerous you can work in another factory or educate yourself and become skilled enough to be worth while to please. Not to mention, if it is that dangerous most people probably wont work in that line of work unless they have no choice, in which case they should be HAPPY to have that dangerous job because they can eat. Call me calloused, but I would personally rather work a dangerous job and get food, as opposed to robbing my employer. We both earn our keep (the employer and me) and the market sets the price for my work. I am nothing more than a cog in the machine that is the economy.
    - josh2600 13y ago
      You're not calloused, you're just wrong, IMHO. Having to work a dangerous job is almost always a result of cutting corners in ways that are ultimately negatively impacting on the aggregate economy. What you're doing when you provide a dangerous work environment is saying that it's ok for employees to get injured. When they're injured they probably can't work for the company anymore, and so that company is socializing the cost of their healthcare. The public bears the risk of the enterprise, and the private organization enjoys only the upside; hardly an equitable social arrangement. In your example of GM, I would actually argue that the unions were not the ultimate cause of the failure of American automobiles, but rather a lack of vision, innovation and competitiveness against the Asian manufacturers. One could also say that dividending endlessly despite failing competitively was a lack of leadership, but the failure was one stemming from a lack of revenue, not an outlandish cost structure. It's true that the unions were getting too much, but that's hardly why GM had to get bailed out. You're making a libertarian argument that basically says everyone should have to sing for their supper, irrespective of danger, and that's, frankly, a draconian view of the world, IMHO. We don't need to work like that anymore; having dangerous jobs doesn't help advance the economy and in fact actually harms the aggregate economic output. To be clear, this is just my opinion, you might disagree, but I hope we can engage in civil discussion about this very interesting topic :).

area51org 13y ago

This is the only judge that has ruled this way The problem may be that this ruling could be taken as having set a precedent. IANAL, but I do know that judicial precedents are huge in the legal system, and can be the basis for years of subsequent rulings.

MWil 13y ago
The court that this came out of has zero ability to set precedent (I mean other than that they decided a case that may go on to set precedent later). Federal district courts are like state trial courts. These judges can pretty much do all sorts of things and we don't really care because they'll get fixed hopefully by the appeals courts. The appeals courts are the first line of actual precedent but only for those courts that are below them (federal appeals - only binding on lower courts in the same circuit, state appeals - only binding on the lower courts of that state). Appeals courts are not binding upon other appeals courts and usually the US Supreme Court doesn't like to get involved unless it's so clearly unconstitutional or if there is a circuit split where some have gone one way and some have gone completely another (because the federal system is supposed to be much more uniform than than the individual states).
- D9u 13y ago
  Thanks for spelling it out for me like that. I just hope that enough of us are complaining to everyone who will listen that the spy apparatchik is reined in to be constitutionally acceptable to "We the People."
  - MWil 13y ago
    No problem and I should point out that I was being cynical when I said "we don't really care" with regards to trial/district courts. The sad truth is if you want to take someone to court or if you are taken to court, if you really want to be satisfied you better be prepared from the outset to go through at least two trials (one to develop the record and one or more to attack/uphold the record). You literally could get a judge at the lowest level that decides he's going to rule based on how he feels that day although you'd like to think not.

rmrfrmrf 13y ago

Did you even read the article? This is a huge win. You're just spouting rhetoric without taking the time to celebrate this massive victory!

MWil 13y ago
calling this a huge win and a massive victory wouldn't be much better, but it is a very respectable start