Remix clone Hacker News

<< Second, I am pleased that the Court declines to consider the classified evidence the government has submitted to us but shielded from petitioners and their counsel. Ante, at 13, n. 3. Efforts to inject secret evidence into judicial proceedings present obvious constitutional concerns. Usually, “the evidence used to prove the Government’s case must be disclosed to the individual so that he has an opportunity to show that it is untrue.”

Good grief.. I clearly wasn't following it closely, but even the fact that this could have become a thing ( SCOTUS ruling using 'redacted' as evidence ) is severely disheartening.

▲

cryptonector 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> but even the fact that this could have become a thing

So you're upset that the Biden admin attempted to sway the court with secret evidence. But any admin always could behave in that way, and nothing you can do can stop that. The fact that the court decided to ignore that secret evidence should be comforting. Sure, nothing forces the court in the future to stick to that, but this is always true as to everything.

▲

iugtmkbdfil834 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Friend. Why would you insist on painting this in a simple political framework and, more amusingly, assume I follow it that same framework? I am not upset. I am disheartened, dispirited, demoralized, and dismayed, but I am not upset.

If that is the case, why would you start the sentence with a 'so' suggesting you made a leap of logic, where nothing of the sort actually occured given that it is almost a complete non-sequitur.

I am open to a conversation, but I think, and please correct me as needed, that your political bias blinds you in ways that affect any and all discussions.

▲

cryptonector 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I took "disheartened" as "upset". Replace "upset" in my above reply with "disheartened".

I'm quite sure my reply evinced no political bias. I was saying that any administration could do this sort of thing at any time, and any SCOTUS could accept it when the administration does it. We can expect political animals to do this, so it's not surprising when they do it, but we can also expect the SCOTUS not to go there, and they didn't, so what exactly is disheartening? That politicians are so fallible?

Whereas I would think it disheartening only of the court actually used the secret evidence. But they didn't.

▲

iugtmkbdfil834 5 hours ago | parent [-]

<< But they didn't.

We have their word for it, don't we. I am only half-jesting. If they saw that evidence, it entered their calculus whether they admit it or not, and that is assuming they didn't simply pull a Snowden ( one document for public consumption; one for IC ). Isn't it fun when you can't trust your own government?

But I digress.

<< I'm quite sure my reply evinced no political bias.

Hmm. It is possible that I jumped to conclusion myself. You opened your position with Biden, where he was not mentioned suggesting you have a political axe to grind. Biden is not a SCOTUS member. But I am willing to assume it was a mental shortcut.

<< I was saying that any administration could do this sort of thing at any time, and any SCOTUS could accept it when the administration does it.

I accept that.

<< Whereas I would think it disheartening only of the court actually used the secret evidence.

Hmm, I don't accept this. Even mentioning this as a thing undermines the existing system the same way parrallel construction undermines it. You might not see it as an issue, but I see water slowly chipping away at what was once a solid wall. And I see it, others can see it too.

	▲	cryptonector 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> We have their word for it, don't we. I am only half-jesting. If they saw that evidence, it entered their calculus whether they admit it or not, and that is assuming they didn't simply pull a Snowden ( one document for public consumption; one for IC ). Isn't it fun when you can't trust your own government? Nine of them, and not one willing to reveal what the secret evidence is or that they sued it. Consider the leaking around Dobbs. I dunno, I'd hope that at least one justice would blow this whistle, so I think it's most likely that they did ignore that evidence, and probably they decided that very early on. > Hmm. It is possible that I jumped to conclusion myself. You opened your position with Biden, where he was not mentioned suggesting you have a political axe to grind. Biden is not a SCOTUS member. But I am willing to assume it was a mental shortcut. Thanks. Mentioning that it was the Biden administration was redundant, I'll agree with that, but it's also factual, and typical in all news stories of this sort. I thought nothing of it. > Hmm, I don't accept this. Even mentioning this as a thing undermines the existing system the same way parrallel construction undermines it. You might not see it as an issue, but I see water slowly chipping away at what was once a solid wall. And I see it, others can see it too. This is like saying that you're disheartened that politicians are the way they are -- that's a given. I too am disheartened by that. But it's human nature. The justices too are human, but I'm comforted that they even mentioned that they wouldn't use the secret evidence because that is a signal to future administrations that they shouldn't bother trying to use secret evidence. I would have preferred stronger language from the court regarding secret evidence, but I'll take this.

▲

13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]