Rendered at 23:32:11 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
coldpie 24 hours ago [-]
It is going to take decades to clean up the mess of just the last 2 years. So, so, so many people need to be in jail.
jkubicek 20 hours ago [-]
I've become a jail maximalist. Everyone who stole government data while working for DOGE? Jail. Everyone who offered a bribe to the Trump administration or accepted a bribe on behalf of the Trump administration? Jail. Everyone from private to general who was involved in murdering all those Argentinian fisherman? A hole in the ground under the jail.
12 hours ago [-]
craigmcnamara 20 hours ago [-]
Jail is a good start, but maybe a step farther for some.
causesothere 19 hours ago [-]
When education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to be oppressors. We must seek not to invert the relationship, but in fact to humanize both sides. Teach them empathy as justice is served to make whole the oppressed.
hn_acker 6 hours ago [-]
> When education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to be oppressors. We must seek not to invert the relationship, but in fact to humanize both sides.
(Downthread:)
> Prison is necessarily oppressive.
> Sure sounds like you want to oppress a people to me.
Are you arguing that we should strive for a society that does not imprison anyone, or are you asking people to recognize prison as oppression without excluding prison as a valid/necessary/reasonable treatment for some people?
> Teach them empathy as justice is served to make whole the oppressed.
While the oppressed should not have sole decision-making authority or unlimited options (and afaik the oppressed almost never if ever advocate for such), generally the evaluation of whether the oppressed have been made whole (and whether the oppressed can be made whole in the first place) is for the oppressed to make, not for others or the law to decide.
Let us also recognize fundamental differences between oppressing people for their identities or their not-acted-upon thoughts and oppressing people for their actions.
dragonsky67 19 hours ago [-]
I don't see how things are improved by conducting a witch hunt. Rather expend that energy at doing things better - showing how things should be done, create by action a positive contrast to the actions you would condemn.
Maybe if those where are in public service, would actually do their jobs and serve the public we would all be better off.
It's a hard thing to do - letting people get away with murder - but if the alternative is to expand the current divisions in society, is it the best outcome for that society?
I don't have the answers, but I know it's very easy to point fingers and say "it's all their fault".. They have been doing it for years, and have shown it works, do you also want to take up their methods?
jfim 18 hours ago [-]
> Maybe if those where are in public service, would actually do their jobs and serve the public we would all be better off.
What makes you think they don't?
causesothere 18 hours ago [-]
I think you are agreeing with me?
jkubicek 18 hours ago [-]
The implication of "witch hunt" is that there isn't really anything to find; authorities are abusing their power to harass someone for political reasons.
Why would a billionaire known for bribing authorities pay Alina Habba $50MM (for no apparent reason) immediately before receiving a presidential pardon? If we continue to let people like this get away with committing crimes right out in the open, we're never going to get back to a world where the rule of law matters.
We can't let accusing your political enemies of a crime as you are actively committing the same crime continue to be a get-out-of-jail-free card. There's no both-sides here. One side is obscenely corrupt, the other is... the best we have at the moment.
jkubicek 19 hours ago [-]
I don't want to oppress a people, I want to jail criminals.
causesothere 18 hours ago [-]
Prison is necessarily oppressive. "Criminal" sure does a lot of heavy lifting when you are making the laws...
Sure sounds like you want to oppress a people to me.
oliwarner 11 hours ago [-]
I'd wait a few years before prosecuting anyone though. Or find some way to withdraw Trump's ability to pardon people for crime he enabled.
jfengel 10 hours ago [-]
"The court will decide the remedy at a later date."
It's not much of a victory if the remedy is meaningless. The initial suit asks for:
1. Declare that the Suitability Rule and the Performance Appraisal Rule are not in accordance with law; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; and arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA;
2. Vacate, hold unlawful, and set aside the Suitability Rule and the Performance Appraisal Rule under the APA;
3. Enter any stay or preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as warranted by law;
4. Award Plaintiffs their costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and other disbursements asappropriate; and
5. Grant such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
----------
As far as I can tell, this comes down to "don't let this affect people's performance ratings come the next review". That seems really unlikely to me. You can't ask people to forget what they know -- and even if they pretend to, they won't.
mannyv 15 hours ago [-]
In this era, a ruling by a district court is irrelevant.
What do the Supremes say?
There have been a lot of doctrinal changes over the last few years, and lots of courts haven't gotten the memo.
(Downthread:)
> Prison is necessarily oppressive.
> Sure sounds like you want to oppress a people to me.
Are you arguing that we should strive for a society that does not imprison anyone, or are you asking people to recognize prison as oppression without excluding prison as a valid/necessary/reasonable treatment for some people?
> Teach them empathy as justice is served to make whole the oppressed.
While the oppressed should not have sole decision-making authority or unlimited options (and afaik the oppressed almost never if ever advocate for such), generally the evaluation of whether the oppressed have been made whole (and whether the oppressed can be made whole in the first place) is for the oppressed to make, not for others or the law to decide.
Let us also recognize fundamental differences between oppressing people for their identities or their not-acted-upon thoughts and oppressing people for their actions.
Maybe if those where are in public service, would actually do their jobs and serve the public we would all be better off.
It's a hard thing to do - letting people get away with murder - but if the alternative is to expand the current divisions in society, is it the best outcome for that society?
I don't have the answers, but I know it's very easy to point fingers and say "it's all their fault".. They have been doing it for years, and have shown it works, do you also want to take up their methods?
What makes you think they don't?
Why would a billionaire known for bribing authorities pay Alina Habba $50MM (for no apparent reason) immediately before receiving a presidential pardon? If we continue to let people like this get away with committing crimes right out in the open, we're never going to get back to a world where the rule of law matters.
We can't let accusing your political enemies of a crime as you are actively committing the same crime continue to be a get-out-of-jail-free card. There's no both-sides here. One side is obscenely corrupt, the other is... the best we have at the moment.
Sure sounds like you want to oppress a people to me.
It's not much of a victory if the remedy is meaningless. The initial suit asks for:
1. Declare that the Suitability Rule and the Performance Appraisal Rule are not in accordance with law; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; and arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA; 2. Vacate, hold unlawful, and set aside the Suitability Rule and the Performance Appraisal Rule under the APA; 3. Enter any stay or preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as warranted by law; 4. Award Plaintiffs their costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and other disbursements asappropriate; and 5. Grant such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
----------
As far as I can tell, this comes down to "don't let this affect people's performance ratings come the next review". That seems really unlikely to me. You can't ask people to forget what they know -- and even if they pretend to, they won't.
What do the Supremes say?
There have been a lot of doctrinal changes over the last few years, and lots of courts haven't gotten the memo.