23 ms·

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 determ

by brookst 10d 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 10d 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 10d 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.

by brookst 10d ago

rayiner 10d 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 10d 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.