Hacker News Reader

Comment by smt88 | Hacker News Reader

This is mostly untrue and essentially the point of judges. A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes or misinterpretations of a law.

View on HN

The judge can and likely will strike this down, but the damage has been done by that point (delay the procedure and wear the very human opponent down) and I doubt there will be meaningful consequences or compensation for trying.

I believe this is a US case, so the free citizens of this wonderful democratic country can just vote better lawmakers into their parliament at the next election.

Ironic

Most of our lawmakers are lawyers, for who is more qualified to write laws? They write laws that serve the interests of their colleagues. Trust the experts.

At least the lawmakers in both of our legislative bodies are democratically elected, unlike the UK which somehow still has hereditary positions in their government in the year 2024.

I thought that only life peers got to vote. Not so?

Don't forget that the UK is one of only two countries in the world that has dedicated positions (26 Lords Spiritual) in their government for members of the state religion. The other country is Iran.

I think you're essentially proving the op's point.

In your own words, "A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes." In that sentence, "people" === lawyers

I think parent meant that you cannot hack the law because judge will see it and tell you to go away.

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.

Ah, I see. But I also think that sircastor's point when they said "hackers" was not that lawyers can bypass the intent of the law with impunity. Rather, I think the point was that lawyers will frequently attempt to interpret, use, and even abuse both the letter and the intent of the law in clever ways in order to achieve their goals on behalf of their clients.

One hack though is to drag out proceedings to cause additional cost, which a judge can limit but not entirely avoid.

A denial of service?

Denial of justice :(

In the US, if you don’t have money, legal recourse is essentially unavailable to you. Sometimes even if you do have money, finding a lawyer who specializes in your need is often impossible.

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.

The current SCOTUS would disagree strongly as they are using ridiculous loopholes from the bench

‘Loophole’ is another way of saying, ‘the law as written.’ The job of judges is to apply the law as written, not the law as they wish it would be.

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.

> The job of judges is to apply the law as written

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.

The job of judges is to apply the law as dictated by their billionaire, gift-giving "friends".

Made a few changes to reflect the current state of SCOTUS. :)

Is that really the case? Judges shut down some loopholes or 'hacks', but then others are allowed as being perfectly acceptable. The rational that decides when one is allowed and one is not seems to be a second level to the hacking. You can't just exploit the law, but find a way to ensure the exploitation is ruled valid.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com