Hacker News Reader

Frankly I'd prefer the latter because that would take away their plausible deniability and make it obvious that the court has gone rogue.

View on HN

I've seen this attitude an increasing amount over the past few years. I think it's the same thing that's responsible for the current US presidential administration.

There's this attitude of, "this thing is partly broken sometimes. We should make it all broken, all the time, and that will be better".

Is there this faith that some higher power will swoop in afterwards and replace the now completely broken system with something that's good?

I think the result will be, things will simply be much worse than they were before.

I don't want to make it all broken. I would much prefer it not to be broken at all. I would much prefer if the courts just followed the law all the time. But if it's going to be broke, if the courts are not going to follow the law, I'd much prefer they do it all the time so that it is obvious that they are not following the law, and then maybe people will notice and do something about it.

The real problem I think is that no one seems to actually want the courts to follow the law. Everyone wants the courts to bend the law to their own desires, and so everyone gives them a pass when they do this. And that's how we end up in situations like we are in now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com