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

Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 475 posts

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#101

Post by theultdev »

bobthepanda wrote: post #96
ElProlactin wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right: the current administration would find a way because they don't care what the law says. The law, to them, is a system to be hacked when necessary. Many Americans take for granted the idea that the US is a "nation of laws" and that "rule of law" governs above all else. But the reality is this: there is no such thing as a perfect legal system. You can have a strong legal system by design (good oversight, v…

An interesting feature of Trump 2.0 is that his party has essentially entirely keeled over. Presidents are not historically all powerful within their own parties and the nature of the big tent systems means usually it is fairly difficult to get agreement on everything within a party without some compromise. Trump has managed to defang everybody else in the GOP.

Nah the GOP never had fangs.

They can't even get the SAVE act passed.

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#102

Post by tialaramex »

oatmeal1 wrote: post #66
throw0101a wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't they expedite for special cases? To a certain extent this exists, but given that SCOTUS has been stacked with GOPers… > The shadow docket is a break from ordinary procedure. Such cases receive very limited briefings and are typically decided a week or less after an application is filed. The process generally results in short, unsigned rulings. In contrast, merits cases take months, include extensive brief…

It's not unusual that the "shadow docket" orders have limited briefings when the extent of the ruling/order is usually procedural, as opposed to ruling on the merits of the case. It should be noted any justice can write a dissent in a "shadow docket" ruling. If a justice finds a ruling incorrect, nothing hides their criticism of it from the light.

This mechanism means that regardless of how awful the Trump admin proposal one SCOTUS justice can "temporarily" unblock it giving no reason at all, and then the "real" merits case can be slow-walked.

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#103

Post by exe34 »

jimmaswell wrote: post #55
fny wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bush and Obama filed 8 emergency applications across their presidencies (16 years.) The first Trump admin filed 41. Biden filed 19. The second Trump admin filed 32 in 2025 alone.

Ok? This is a total non-sequitur.

It indicates one of two things: either the orange fuhrer is being sabotaged and having to defend himself, or that he's doing blatantly illegal things and even a court stacked in his favour by him is trying to reign him in.

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#104

Post by bpodgursky »

perarneng wrote: post #97

Does anything matter if it's illegal or not when it comes to the current government? This is not a flamewar im interested from a practical perspective if things like this has any effects at all in practice.

It de-risks defense contractors working with Anthropic on other projects. The most aggressive interpretation of the blacklist is that Lockheed Martin was not allowed to use Anthropic to develop their own products, and that's not on the table anymore.

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#105

Post by penguin_booze »

firefoxd wrote: post #3

The law is too slow. It's like a horse carriage in the age of twitter. Why can't they expedite for special cases? Not even defending Antropic or any company. Just that if a tweet can cause damage in seconds, the law shouldn't be too far behind.

"The wheels of justice turns slowly but grinds finely". Oof!

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#106

Post by kaon_2 »

firefoxd wrote: post #3

The law is too slow. It's like a horse carriage in the age of twitter. Why can't they expedite for special cases? Not even defending Antropic or any company. Just that if a tweet can cause damage in seconds, the law shouldn't be too far behind.

You are right and yet I continue to be impressed by a court system that can deliver judgment in 3 months whereas in the Netherlands nothing happens in under a year and complex cases always last more than five.

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#107

Post by somenameforme »

klik99 wrote: post #98
bobthepanda wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting feature of Trump 2.0 is that his party has essentially entirely keeled over. Presidents are not historically all powerful within their own parties and the nature of the big tent systems means usually it is fairly difficult to get agreement on everything within a party without some compromise. Trump has managed to defang everybody else in the GOP.

This is true but every recent president has expanded powers, and had their party agree. Due to my age, I first noticed it with Bush then when Obama continued it, it felt weird to be fine with allowing more power in the executive branch when it’s someone you support, because that’ll add to the precedent for the next person who you don’t support. The presidency has come a long way since Washington and Trump 2.0 is a cl…

Exactly. People forget things like Obama signing a law into existence that allows for the indefinite detention of Americans without trial or charge if you claim they're connected to terrorism. [1] As far as I know that law has not yet been used. However that leads to two issues. (1) It could be at any time. The current issues with Israel are rife for abuse to the point that I'm somewhat surprised it hasn't yet been used.

And (2) if the law hasn't been used then WTF did we even consider signing it into power, let alone actually doing it? Something like this should never be done, but if done one would think it would only be in the face of an imminent and urgent need. Instead we seemed to have just casually signed unconstitutional executive tyranny into power 'just in case.'

The only way we're ever going to reign in executive power is if one party or the other starts rolling back executive power while they're in power. But when people are in power they seem to convince themselves that it will always be like this, and so when it comes to power all they can say is 'more, more, more.'

[1] - https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-in...

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#108

Post by ExoticPearTree »

Before bashing Trump for not liking Anthropic, people should consider the consequences of having the judiciary decide what software companies the government can and cannot use.

You might get a petty win against the current administration, but lose big when next time a judge decides that $random_department must use Oracle for ERP and not SAP for example because Oracle has better lawyers and wants money from the government. You get the idea.

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#109

Post by addy34 »

CMay wrote: post #90
inigyou wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually they made a law saying the president can do whatever he wants.

[flagged]

Not in those words, but the decision did give absolute immunity from criminal prosecution and civil damage suits for all core official acts and presumptive immunity for all acts "performed within the outer perimiter of his official responsibility". It also severely restricted the ability to gather evidence for acts that do not fall within this scope.

This is extremely broad, and not unreasonable to summarize as the president being able to do whatever they want without fear of criminal/civil consequences.

Suggesting that everyone should read the 120 page, highly technical decision and come to their own conclusions is not helpful.

Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal

#110

Post by somenameforme »

BowBun wrote: post #74
LoganDark wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is genuinely impossible to compete in a market where alternatives are cheaper enough, just look at how Amazon Basics squeezes competitors out of business.

This is why free trade is important. We had a decent setup where countries were specializing in their own manufacturing/services specialties, and then we all paid each other for what we needed. Then some greedy fools decided they needed more, and started trying to charge more on the way out or on the way in. Now the ones that specialized in the 'must haves' of today have insane leverage over everyone else. Then the '…

The reality of the world is that when the US sets e.g. environmental or labor standards, we basically end up offshoring the affected industries to other places. Because those standards increase the cost of production which makes it more economical to produce stuff in a country that doesn't have such standards. With completely free trade, everything would be made in whichever country has the lowest standards, which is rather contrary to the implied values when passing environmental and labor standards in the first place.

You could then try to make laws that countries we import from must abide certain standards, but just gets gamed endlessly. For instance cacao/chocolate makes extensive use of child slavery [1]. There have been numerous lawsuits over this until the Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that you could no longer sue Nestle/Cargill/Hershey/etc over child slavery in their supply lines. They were being sued because their oversight came down to asking, 'Hey you're not using child labor right?' 'Nah.' 'Cheers then, carry on.'

When a company's goal is to not see something, they do a very good job of becoming blind.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_producti...

Post reply on HN