←back to thread

197 points LorenDB | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.606s | source
1. aprilthird2021 ◴[] No.41908505[source]
There should be a shortcut through our legal bureaucracy to punish obvious BS like this. The amount of time wasted to evaluate such stupid claims is surely huge.
replies(3): >>41908563 #>>41909289 #>>41909572 #
2. double2helix ◴[] No.41908563[source]
Well said.
3. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.41909289[source]
It's all part of the proceedings. Even on the SCOTUS the dissenting option is allowed to be posted for why they went for the other decision.

Also, I don't think this response is really the same as an appeal. It's just another legal footnote to keep in mind if/when other parts of the court comes in to block this (as they are so likely to do this year. Can't let the working class have good things).

4. 0xcde4c3db ◴[] No.41909572[source]
I don't know about punishment being the norm, but I'd like to see an agency (perhaps a better-funded and more independent analog of the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection) that is competent and efficient enough to legitimately earn a lot of deference. That is, they could issue a quasi-C&D "here's a handy step-by-step guide to avoid doing this the hard way (you dumbass)" letter and have any competent lawyer's default reaction be something like "they're almost certainly right and you'd be an idiot to fight this" instead of "here's how we can fight this".

Of course, that implies a system that places the interests of citizens at least on par with the interests of capital (and can conceive of those as distinct concepts in the first place), which is clearly communist crazy-talk.