Supreme Court case about hotel websites could upend much of US civil rights law

Interestingly enough, the entire prospect of judicial testing has been a recurring point of interest for me seeing as in reality, the passing of a law does not seem to be what makes something illegal per se in our system. A law must be passed, then tested in court. This seems to create an opportunity for literal judicial test frameworks. Do thing that one knows should get a particular result, and just do them immediately to get precedent established and locked in.

Over time it'd probably morph the landscape of legal primitives enough one of two outcomes would manifest:

A) we discover it's Turing complete

B) We have enough data we can academically prove that it's rife with contradiction, create tooling to facilitate rapid elevation thereof of said contradictions, and start the multi-generational process of trying to do consistency passes to bring sanity to this seemingly intentional corpus of madness we call our legal system.

I do find it interesting there are such apparent legal primitives whereby the phenomena of "plaintiff can collect no damages, attorney gets paid, but not enough to ensure opportunity cost by a trained attorney is realistically recouped" that basically ensure a law is toothless in execution.

Seems that this is one of those cases that is increasingly demonstrating the growing inadequacy and inaccesibility of the judicial system to the average citizen.

Original article title at the time of submission was “A Supreme Court case about hotel websites could blow up much of US civil rights law”.

I ran into max title length restrictions when I used the original, so I did my best to edit down to size without editorializing.