←back to thread

Beginning 1 September, we will need to geoblock Mississippi IPs

(dw-news.dreamwidth.org)
295 points AndrewDucker | 6 comments | 27 Aug 25 20:03 UTC | HN request time: 1.42s | source | bottom
Show context
BrenBarn ◴[28 Aug 25 04:07 UTC] No.45048272[source]▶
Our legal system is a shambles that is clearly not prepared to handle this kind of thing, even setting aside the situation with the supreme court. It's become clear that the "shadow law" of simply passing unconstitutional statutes, filing frivilous lawsuits, etc., is operating independently of the real legal system moves too slowly and does not have adequate mechanisms to prevent what is essentially a DDoS attack. All justice is delayed and so all justice is denied.
replies(4): >>45049243 #>>45049638 #>>45051988 #>>45053131 #
eviks ◴[28 Aug 25 08:01 UTC] No.45049638[source]▶
> passing unconstitutional statutes > independently of the real legal system

The former is literally the real legal system, nothing shadow about it. Shadow would be some hidden deal to drop charges or something.

It's also not DDOS when a huge part of what you call "real" is exactly the same, so not unwillingly overloaded but willingly complicit.

replies(1): >>45049939 #
dudefeliciano ◴[28 Aug 25 08:53 UTC] No.45049939[source]▶
the real legal system is slow by design, to carefully review cases and ensure fairness. It should also be based on good faith. The vulnerability comes from one bad faith party flooding the system with bad faith cases and appeals (as trump is doing). Even when he fails, the process becomes the punishment for the opposing side (journalists, political opponents...). When he wins, he wins.
replies(4): >>45050094 #>>45052009 #>>45053170 #>>45055944 #
hiatus ◴[28 Aug 25 13:37 UTC] No.45052009[source]▶
> The vulnerability comes from one bad faith party flooding the system with bad faith cases and appeals

No, this is literally a "both sides" issue. Lawfare is not new. See the continuous legal battles over the second amendment in states like NY, NJ, and CA.

replies(1): >>45052271 #
dudefeliciano ◴[28 Aug 25 13:58 UTC] No.45052271[source]▶
i was not aware of Biden or Democrat presidents filing personal lawsuits against journalists and politcal opponents...
replies(1): >>45053198 #
rayiner ◴[28 Aug 25 15:11 UTC] No.45053198[source]▶
Just last week a New York intermediate appellate court overturned the $500 million fraud judgment against Trump: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/21/new-york-civil-frau.... Yes, it wasn't brought by Biden--but it was brought by an elected Democrat Attorney General who campaigned on "going after Trump." Note that, out of the five judge panel, three would have overturned the underlying conviction, while two would have granted a new trial, and one would have thrown the case out entirely:

> Two other judges, John Higgitt and Llinét Rosado, said James had the authority to bring the case but argued for giving Trump a new trial. And the fifth judge, Justice David Friedman, argued to throw out the case, saying James lacked the authority to bring it.

replies(3): >>45054262 #>>45054396 #>>45054821 #
1. dudefeliciano ◴[28 Aug 25 16:54 UTC] No.45054396[source]▶
> Yes, it wasn't brought by Biden

Isn't that the crux of the matter? You have a (crypto)billionaire president using his presidential powers and personal wealth to start frivolous lawsuit to shut down his opponents. If that doesn't worry you I really don't know what to tell you.

replies(1): >>45055277 #
2. rayiner ◴[28 Aug 25 18:19 UTC] No.45055277[source]▶
It was brought by the elected Attorney General of New York, in furtherance of a promise to voters to pursue unspecified legal actions against the leader of the other party. I don't like lawfare, but I've come to the conclusion that the only proper response to norm violations is a 10x counter-response.
replies(1): >>45059501 #
3. BrenBarn ◴[29 Aug 25 02:42 UTC] No.45059501[source]▶
> I've come to the conclusion that the only proper response to norm violations is a 10x counter-response.

That may be true --- or even a 100x response. But the thing is that a 100x (and probably even a 10x) response to many of these norm violations would take us well beyond the entire realm of lawfare. A 10x response would be at least "ignore everything the entire federal court system says because it's irredeemably corrupted", if not actual armed resistance.

Even going back well before Trump, norm violations like McConnell holding Scalia's seat open already made it clear that the Supreme Court was no longer a meaningful institution (if it ever had been). I don't mean I didn't like some of their decisions. I mean the entire thing is a meaningless charade, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year and 366 in leap years. And that is just one example. The level of "counter-response" required to recover from the norm violations we've had over the last 10-20 years requires an overhaul to the very foundations of our system of government.

replies(1): >>45061955 #
4. jacquesm ◴[29 Aug 25 09:24 UTC] No.45061955{3}[source]▶
> The level of "counter-response" required to recover from the norm violations we've had over the last 10-20 years requires an overhaul to the very foundations of our system of government.

You might just get it. If the country survives as an entity. Otherwise you might get several new systems of government.

replies(1): >>45062622 #
5. dudefeliciano ◴[29 Aug 25 11:17 UTC] No.45062622{4}[source]▶
The system is flawed so let’s completely destroy it and build it from the ground up. This is what that statement sounds like to me, and it reminds me of a junior developer entering a company confident that he can rewrite the whole code base to make it more efficient.
replies(1): >>45063990 #
6. jacquesm ◴[29 Aug 25 13:39 UTC] No.45063990{5}[source]▶
Yes. And it never works. They always end up pulling back well before the prospective release date. Incremental beats big bang. Especially at the level of nation states, unless you don't care about a couple of million liters of blood.