4 ms·

By accepting the frame that it is federal judges and not the law that is blocking trump, it means that we are analyzing based on a frame of Trump vs Judges rath

By accepting the frame that it is federal judges and not the law that is blocking trump, it means that we are analyzing based on a frame of Trump vs Judges rather than Trump vs Law. If you accept that framing, you accept many of that frames implications without even consciously processing them. This is one of the ways that consent is manufactured. This ruling is stating that federal judges cannot rule that the law is blocking Trump. By accepting and adopting the frame that it is Trump vs Judges you implicitly accept that the law itself is a weapon rather than a boundary. It argues that the law is subjective, based on the judge ruling, rather than objective. It argues that there is no objective truth. To say it is judges and not the law that stops trump is to say that judges are agents of themselves and not agents of the law. Agreeing that it is Judges vs Trump is implicitly agreeing that the law is arbitrary based on the judge ruling. Arbitrary government is authoritarian government. The court’s decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,” Jackson wrote. “Given the critical role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law … it is odd, to say the least, that the court would grant the executive’s wish to be freed from the constraints of law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with the constitution. This feels about as grim as the Citizens United dissent, which has been proven more and more true every day: A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.

grapesodaaaaa 1y ago
To some extent, laws are enforced and interpreted subjectively. The famous quote “give me the man and I will give you the case against him.” Comes to mind. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_give_you_the_case_against_him https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_g... Legal settings (at least in the US), have always favored the wealthy who can find an army of lawyers to find loopholes. I don’t agree with this, and hopefully what is currently happening raises awareness. For example, the Patriot act post-9/11 famously gave law enforcement unconstitutional powers within 100 miles of a national border (I could be off, but this is how I remember it). If you really want to split hairs, the US has a LOT of borders if you include international airports.
selfselfgo 1y ago
[dead]
zdragnar 1y ago
The supreme court didn't rule on the legal merits of the three lawsuits, the ruled on the scope of the authority of the judges of the lower courts. As for interpretation: of course it is subjective. That's literally what they do in cases of federal and constitutional law: statutory interpretation. There's even named schools of thought for how it should be done, purposivism and textualism. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_interpretation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_interpretation
- hayst4ck 1y ago
  Did this centralize power or distribute power? Is the constitution more protected or less protected? Will trump have a harder time breaking the law or an easier time? Many in this thread arguing about the legal minutiae of a system that only became problematic in the context of an anti-constitution anti-law president... and I just don't understand. I don't understand what reality you're living in where this is something to defend.
  - heylook 1y ago
    > I don't understand what reality you're living in where this is something to defend. Hacker news has become a much more depressing place post-Covid. Musk, Zuck, the All-In guys, Bezos, Altman. All of them role models for the people here, and all of them have gone mask-off to one degree or another in their pursuit of power and wealth and public adulation. One side of the hacker/startup coin is "look at how I [built this company|escalated privilege|retired early] by [twisting the rules of the system|exploiting a loophole|penetration testing]", and that ethos isn't entirely that far away from "did you know you can get the laws changed just by spending $50k on a senator?" or "Twitter only needs 50 engineers as long as they're all H1-B hostages". It really feels like what we've lost is empathy and humanity.
    - squigz 1y ago
      Let's not conflate hackers with startup people.

grapesodaaaaa 1y ago

To some extent, laws are enforced and interpreted subjectively. The famous quote “give me the man and I will give you the case against him.” Comes to mind. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_give_you_the_case_against_him https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_g... Legal settings (at least in the US), have always favored the wealthy who can find an army of lawyers to find loopholes. I don’t agree with this, and hopefully what is currently happening raises awareness. For example, the Patriot act post-9/11 famously gave law enforcement unconstitutional powers within 100 miles of a national border (I could be off, but this is how I remember it). If you really want to split hairs, the US has a LOT of borders if you include international airports.

selfselfgo 1y ago

[dead]

zdragnar 1y ago

The supreme court didn't rule on the legal merits of the three lawsuits, the ruled on the scope of the authority of the judges of the lower courts. As for interpretation: of course it is subjective. That's literally what they do in cases of federal and constitutional law: statutory interpretation. There's even named schools of thought for how it should be done, purposivism and textualism. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_interpretation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_interpretation

hayst4ck 1y ago
Did this centralize power or distribute power? Is the constitution more protected or less protected? Will trump have a harder time breaking the law or an easier time? Many in this thread arguing about the legal minutiae of a system that only became problematic in the context of an anti-constitution anti-law president... and I just don't understand. I don't understand what reality you're living in where this is something to defend.
- heylook 1y ago
  > I don't understand what reality you're living in where this is something to defend. Hacker news has become a much more depressing place post-Covid. Musk, Zuck, the All-In guys, Bezos, Altman. All of them role models for the people here, and all of them have gone mask-off to one degree or another in their pursuit of power and wealth and public adulation. One side of the hacker/startup coin is "look at how I [built this company|escalated privilege|retired early] by [twisting the rules of the system|exploiting a loophole|penetration testing]", and that ethos isn't entirely that far away from "did you know you can get the laws changed just by spending $50k on a senator?" or "Twitter only needs 50 engineers as long as they're all H1-B hostages". It really feels like what we've lost is empathy and humanity.
  - squigz 1y ago
    Let's not conflate hackers with startup people.