Hacker News Reader

Comment by giantg2 | Hacker News Reader

So when are they going to get to all the other unlawful stuff the government does?

When someone with standing sues.

and has extremely deep pockets

Not necessarily the case. There are lit fees of course, and filing fees, discovery, etc. But once you get to the SCOTUS stage, assuming you're not retaining Gibson Dunn or Covington or someone's supreme court practice, there are many clinics with some star power that will do the case for free. Many top law schools have Supreme Court clinic and we sought out cases that we could bring to SCOTUS. We would have died to help take this case to SCOTUS, for example, completely free.

What does clinic mean in this context? Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_clinic

programs that take cases for free, typically while using them as training material.

This is right. Here's an example of one of the best known SCOTUS clinics, for more specificity: https://law.stanford.edu/supreme-court-litigation-clinic/

> "once you get to the SCOTUS stage"

when someone - like you - starts working for it. You are going to start, right?

"You're not allowed to talk about a problem unless you're dedicating your life to solving it"

I did not say that. I do not expect that from anyone. Please do not twist my words.

I would if I believed in the system. The system has become an oligarchy where the ruling class is not subject to rule of law. The system ignores blatant violation of law by making frivolous excuses. For example, how can we allow people to wait years for a trial when the constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial?

The system is the people. It only exists because people say they can't be bothered. It's easier to convince yourself it won't work because the the alternative is trying, and that takes effort. But that indifference permits the system to continue, from the bottom up, allows it to grow cancerous and metastasize.

The world you allow to happen us the world you get. The blame falls on you this time. You get what you deserve if you let it.

It falls on the collective. I do my part - I vote, write my representatives, attend protests/counter-protests. The system will not change because it does not work the way it is supposed to work. Your statement saying that the system is the people is no longer true.

When cases against all the other unlawful stuff reach them, presumably.

Maybe, maybe not. Plenty of activist judges out there, so you never know how stuff will go. SCOTUS also gets to select what they will look at, and there are plenty of topics that they have left as split circuit opinions (look at all the stuff under gun rights).

> they

In democracy there is no "they".

"In democracy you have to be a player" – Hunter S. Thompson, source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHeSC_Ws5Ic

Just so you know, we are a republic. Not quite as easy as a democracy, especially since we are more of an oligarchy (the ruling class is not subject to the complete rule of law).

> Just so you know, we are a republic. Not quite as easy as a democracy,

That's very peculiar specially American internet thing to say. In 1787 the terminology was still unsettled but it's not so today. In both political science and in the common use outside the United States democracy and republic are not excluding each other.

United States is democracy (the source of power) and republic (the structure of the democracy as opposite of monarchy) and federation (structure of the government).

Most modern representative democracies are republics. The term republic can be used to any form of government in which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch. For example many communist states are Republics.

US is also first or one of the first liberal republics.

It's a democratic republic. This means that the individuals holding the positions of authority in the republic have more concentrated power than the citizens in the democracy. For example, SCOTUS has the power to turn down appeals, even when the circuit decisions are split. Logically, this means that they are denying the rights of one of those two (or more) plaintiffs.

Democracy in common language is general term. Not synonym for direct democracy.

I would usually agree.

It may be in common language, but it does make a difference in this specific situation because you are essentially suing the people who have been placed into power and those people could use their power to suppress your objections. Sometimes the judges can be a part of the complaint too, and they aren't even elected but rather appointed.

When you file a lawsuit about it that makes its way up the courts.

Even if I had standing, it would never make it up courts because the oligarchy (judges) decide whether it is worthy or not. Just look at all the split decisions that SCOTUS leaves in place by declining to hear. Logically one of those two plaintiffs is being screwed.

Worthyness only matters when the matter goes up to the SC. There are many layers of courts below them.

If the SC decides the matter is not worthy, that doesn't mean that no decision is reached - it just means that the decision of the lower court is binding.

Yes, but it may be based on a flawed precedent that only the supreme court can overturn. There are also many circuit decisions which conflict with each other that SCOTUS has refused to address. In these instances the court is allowing one of those two plaintiffs to be screwed.

> is allowing one of those two plaintiffs to be screwed.

Only if the SC would have ruled differently from the lower court, of which there is no guarantee for any particular case.

No, it's split decisions from two separate circuit courts on the same issue with conflicting results. Basically one plaintiff from TX would be told 'yes, you have this right' while a plaintiff from NY would be told 'no, you dont have this right'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com