I think that in general the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions have been misinterpreted in the media, and far less ridiculous than, say, Wickard v. Fillburn or Reynolds v. Simms.
well, thank goodness we've never had an activist court so that the phrase activist court had never been used before. What a wonderful world it must be that you think we live, unfortunately for me, that's not the world we live in. The very fact that each and everyone of those judges manipulate the Senate swearing that precedence is important and their impartiality prevents them from prejuding any hypothetical case being posed in their questioning are just words.
Made a few changes to reflect the current state of SCOTUS. :)
In your own words, "A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes." In that sentence, "people" === lawyers
But I do agree judges are hackable too. It is more hassle to do it right and I hope stupid attempts from Disney will be met with some kind of repercussions.
Imagine if you had to pay, as a victim, for the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators. And find a lawyer who handled “just simple battery” and not only murders.
My spouse and I are dealing with this now. It’s awful not being able to get justice.
Given judges are people, it does make it more 'squishy' than things on the tech side. Hacks have to appear clever but not insulting, and sometimes you have to fish for the right judge or court to support you, but that is all just the social engineering part of the hacking.
Anyway it wasn’t till later in the process where one of the lawyers who didn’t seem to have a whole lot of fucks to give explained it to me at the coffee machine. Basically our tax agency decides which interpretation is correct, but you don’t actually have to be correct until they directly tell you that you’re wrong. Which often won’t ever happen as virtually every organisation in the country handles employee driving and there are only five members of the tax agency doing check ups.
I can see it in business software I work on. Interesting part is "required fields", someone makes 10-20 fields required on a form to fill in - but then people start complaining it takes too much time and why they have to fill in those fields and managers of those people come over complaining that software sucks ... well, great but we did not make the requirements, that was company/customer that wanted that.
I get where you come from though. What we tend to do is to stage/gate things so that different teams have different required fields. Sometimes the same team depending on the process. Sometimes all the fields are optional until the “status” of a project needs to go forward, so that they can create a project with very little info but can’t actually pass it on to the next team until they have the required data.
Of course it’s not exactly a magical solution to angry managers and internal corporate politics but it helped us.
Basically within the scope of the legal rules the system is a prisoners dilemma with respect to honesty. If the defense is completely honest but the prosecution isn’t, then an innocent man may go to jail, and vice versa.
The system has no way to enforce honesty, so it is set up in a way that honesty isn’t required. In a system where honesty isn’t required, being honest is basically illogical.
If we want that to change we need a way to detect and enforce honesty in a trial system. I think that is an impossible goal.
They tested it by somehow sneaking in psychopath test questions to other law students (without them knowing), who “passed” (not in a good way).
This is anecdata, but I found it convincingly told. I wonder whether a proper study would assess it (having doubts that would be allowed).