Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What do lawyers do?

nihal.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: What do lawyers do?

#131

Post by honkdaddy »

rgifford wrote: post #120
billyhoffman wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you are saying about declining cognitive abilities, and don’t necessarily disagree. However the lifetime appointment of US Supreme Court justices is a purposeful designed feature, not a bug. It is to foster an independent justice branch that is not beholden to the president that appointed them, because the justice can simply “outlast” the presidents term

> However the lifetime appointment of US Supreme Court justices is a purposeful designed feature... It was a feature in a time when white men lived, on average, to the ripe old age of 38. I'm tired of treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred. Different time, completely different context. Economics, psychology, and almost all of STEM didn't even exist then. They did not know what they were doing.…

Very little of what the founding fathers wrote is considered sacred, I’ve never really heard people make the case that it should be. What is considered sacred by some Americans is the constitution, but I think you’ll find yourself in a small minority if you think it should be thrown away. It doesn’t really matter if you’re tired of hearing about it, it’s a very common American perception that the rules set out in the constitution should still remain the cornerstone of legal precedent in their country. It’s nice to say that those old white men were hacks who got lucky and we should give it a rest with the constitution thing, but most people here don’t really feel that way.

Re: What do lawyers do?

#132

Post by AussieWog93 »

notriddle wrote: post #70
formerkrogemp wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot entertainment and accounting.

Also forgot midwifing, babysitting, and education. No professional lives forever, so a civilization must constantly grow and train replacements.

Don't forget the aqueducts! And sanitation!

Re: What do lawyers do?

#133

Post by rgifford »

d110af5ccf wrote: post #124
rgifford wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However the lifetime appointment of US Supreme Court justices is a purposeful designed feature... It was a feature in a time when white men lived, on average, to the ripe old age of 38. I'm tired of treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred. Different time, completely different context. Economics, psychology, and almost all of STEM didn't even exist then. They did not know what they were doing.…

> a time when white men lived, on average, to the ripe old age of 38 That is a meaningless figure. Those that survived to adulthood had similar lifespans to us. > I'm tired of treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred. This is a common refrain from people who want to change things as they see fit against the wishes of those who disagree with them. If there were broad consensus to change the law as…

> If there were broad consensus to change the law as written then presumably the legislature would vote to do so.

The legislature does not represent popular interests any more and hasn't for years [1]. This is widely studied and accepted. You can see it plainly even in its demographic and socioeconomic composition.

We don't have enough of a shared reality here to come to agreement and should agree to disagree.

1. https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/

Re: What do lawyers do?

#134

Post by ABCLAW »

staticman2 wrote: post #92
ABCLAW wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a "great lawyer" play . It's the standard play for any unscrupulous party engaged against a party with limited funds. Even if a case is pretty open and shut, you can tie it up for years in motions for little benefit. This isn't hard at all.It's hard to be on the other side and respond to it. A great lawyer can achieve a settlement against a party like this without the need to throw sacks of cash onto a fir…

"A great lawyer can achieve a settlement against a party like this without the need to throw sacks of cash onto a firepit." A lawyer, good or bad, has no control whether the other party settles.

I didn't say a good lawyer will achieve the settlement. I said they could.

Keeping costs down and only spending enough to acquire the absolute key arguments, research and evidence is how you get to discuss a settlement with leverage.

A large corp can still pepper you with motions then push into trial, but a great lawyer will be limiting how quickly you burn through your war chest and fight battles judiciously instead of throwing the kitchen sink at every motion.

Re: What do lawyers do?

#135

Post by rgifford »

d110af5ccf wrote: post #122
rgifford wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Law is amazing and much older than programming... And boy does it show. Recent events have me examining The Supreme Court and American law from a programmers perspective. And let me tell you, there are warts: The Supreme Court is comprised of lifelong appointees, mostly in the dwindling twilight of their cognitive ability. This made sense when we didn't understand cognitive decline. Now with the rapid pace of techn…

> mostly in the dwindling twilight of their cognitive ability Have you actually read SCOTUS trial transcripts? Because they come across as incredibly sharp people to me even when I don't agree with their views. > A lot of modern psychology suggests they can't. Actually there are psychology studies examining professionals who have to deal with bias (scientists, judges, etc) that indicate that the competent ones tend t…

> Have you actually read SCOTUS trial transcripts? Because they come across as incredibly sharp people to me even when I don't agree with their views.

Yes. Get nine professionals together to write a subject matter document over a year. I don't care who they are, that document will appear at least superficially put together. I have lots of thoughts/criticism. This isn't the conversation for that, so here's just one of those criticisms:

> Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.

Oh no, drug use and prostitution could be licensed too? Obviously those are terrible and morally repugnant. Backtracking is clearly necessary. What? Why? This isn't the 1970s and the nation isn't 100% on board with Reagan and the war on drugs anymore. A majority of Americans support decriminalizing sex work for example. This point IS contentious, but it's treated as though it's self justifying. It so obviously comes from minds trapped in a bygone era where traditionalist values went unquestioned, where appeals to them were enough.

> Actually there are psychology studies examining professionals who have to deal with bias (scientists, judges, etc) that indicate that the competent ones tend to slightly over rather than under compensate.

I'd love to see these studies. I don't know what over/under compensate means in this context or how that says anything about cognitive decline.

> How is that different than legislating from the bench? Isn't updating laws a job best reserved for the legislature?

The pace of technological progress is increasing. It has surpassed our legislative ability even under the best of circumstances. We aren't in the best of circumstances. Our legislature hasn't effectively represented popular interests for years now [1].

1. https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/

Re: What do lawyers do?

#136

Post by rland »

rootusrootus wrote: post #85
pm90 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the opinions they’re not very convincing. They’re making up principles to adhere to which did not exist before, and doing this for things that have broad support in the US population. So it is quite chaotic out of the blue kind. Essentially the Judges are ruling by decree and will strike down any law that’s not explicitly enumerated in the constitution (and even there they will certainly weaken the law as…

A lot of people think it's possible to read the constitution literally and divine what the words mean. To them, all of this makes perfect sense, because they can't see how the previous rulings ever fit what the constitution prescribes. I sympathize, but clearly there is far more to our laws than just the words on that document. It's just the set of principles providing some foundation. Hell, we started with " congres…

In light of recent events, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that originalism as a legal theory was a decades-long project created with the express purpose of overturning the Warren-era jurisprudence. Roe is the first salvo, but there are many more regressions coming.

It was not created as a good-faith "alternate interpretation." It is not a cohesive or logical theory. It is, instead, a weapon, whose targets should be clear to everyone now. The way the weapon works is that you assume that it is being made in good faith and engage with it on its own terms. And then, again and again, get owned. Because the other guy is just making stuff up, and you, the sucker, are actually arguing.

I'm not quite in conspiracy territory yet, but I really would like to know what they are saying out loud behind closed doors at the Federalist Society HQ.

Re: What do lawyers do?

#137

Post by quacked »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #132
notriddle wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also forgot midwifing, babysitting, and education. No professional lives forever, so a civilization must constantly grow and train replacements.

Don't forget the aqueducts! And sanitation!

Shelter, food, and medicine. Worst case you could replace "shelter" with "construction"

Re: What do lawyers do?

#138

Post by mlyle »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #121
rootusrootus wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO comparing vaccination to women's bodily autonomy is a bad faith argument. Vaccination is about protecting society -- the protection it offers individuals who get the vaccine is incidental. Anti-abortion folks have a stronger argument, IMO, by focusing on the liberty of the unborn child. Both sides refuse to give up ground, however, for political reasons. The logical conclusion is that there is a point somewhere o…

Arguments don't matter, in the end, really

In the long run, "in the end", arguments are all that matters.

Sure, not many mature people are convinced. But people growing up and developing their positions are influenced. And even those of us who are not fully convinced tend to build some nuance into our positions to cope with the stronger arguments.

Re: What do lawyers do?

#139

Post by rgifford »

honkdaddy wrote: post #131
rgifford wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However the lifetime appointment of US Supreme Court justices is a purposeful designed feature... It was a feature in a time when white men lived, on average, to the ripe old age of 38. I'm tired of treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred. Different time, completely different context. Economics, psychology, and almost all of STEM didn't even exist then. They did not know what they were doing.…

Very little of what the founding fathers wrote is considered sacred, I’ve never really heard people make the case that it should be. What is considered sacred by some Americans is the constitution, but I think you’ll find yourself in a small minority if you think it should be thrown away. It doesn’t really matter if you’re tired of hearing about it, it’s a very common American perception that the rules set out in the…

A majority of Americans think we should interpret the constitution in a modern light [1]. The young, secular, internet-age population are going to challenge the constitution further as the generation of Reagan and American exceptionalism go to the nursing home. I'm sure of it. It's a shame we have to suffer the death rattle of traditionalists in the meantime.

1. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/11/growing-sha...

Re: What do lawyers do?

#140

Post by jrm4 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #117
rgifford wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Law is amazing and much older than programming... And boy does it show. Recent events have me examining The Supreme Court and American law from a programmers perspective. And let me tell you, there are warts: The Supreme Court is comprised of lifelong appointees, mostly in the dwindling twilight of their cognitive ability. This made sense when we didn't understand cognitive decline. Now with the rapid pace of techn…

You misunderstand. Law is about persuasion - which is to say it's a combination of marketing, power plays, intimidation, theatrical performance, bureaucratic procedure, and politics. The logical (verbal) reasoning element is only relevant in those situations where it can be used as a tool of persuasion. It's not the only tool, and it isn't even the most powerful one. It is absolutely nothing like coding in any sense…

100%. Relatedly, this is why I'm ultra-skeptical of just about everything AI is hyped up to be these days. Computers are nowhere near us in terms of being able to synthesize all this stuff and actually doing helpful things for humans in this space.
Post reply on HN