> I am aware that this is not the 1950's superman definition of justice.
It’s not any definition of justice, its simply the rule of the powerful over the weak.
It’s not any definition of justice, its simply the rule of the powerful over the weak.
Be that as it may, it likewise does no one any good to pretend it has any connection to justice.
> Be that as it may, it likewise does no one any good to pretend it has any connection to justice.
...because someone on HN is going to be confused by the witty criticism of justice, and experience actual moral or intellectual confusion? Does this not strike you as linguistic pedantry?
But... other than those allowances... Yea, money is pretty important in the US justice system.
People that buy into that ideal fund those organisations so they can provide legal support to enact those principles.
The existence of those organisations (or pro bono work) is not a counterpoint to the premise that the US justice system is predicated upon money (and the implied corrolary that the level of justice you receive is proportional to the amount you pay for it).
(having said that, I don't necessarily agree with the flippant comment that you are replying to, but still).