So what if it’s illegal, what can be done about it, the corruption is so extreme there will be no recourse. I hope I’m wrong…
[flagged]
Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
241–250 of 475 posts
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know, the $166B in refunds returned to importers after the IEEPA tariffs were ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court seem pretty meaningful
Ya, but that's only going to the corporations. I doubt they are going to send the rest of us a check.
I got a refund…
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#243When this administration is done we need to amend the constitution to hold politicians legally and financially responsible for intentionally lying and intentionally breaking the law. This was obviously illegal on its face and yet there is no consequence to pushing the norms.
Could you tell us why the politicians - who are the only ones who have the power to amend the Constitution - would be interested in doing that?
Even a fairly corrupt politician might believe that they are less corrupt than the other guy, and would be able to use the law as a weapon to get an even bigger slice of the cake. Or, still more likely, they would believe that "I get my fair share, you're a petty self-dealer, he is blatantly corrupt" and that the law would not be used against their perfectly open and above-board win-win deals, only against that other guy's filthy looting.
But that aside, as noted upthread, it doesn't actually require an amendment, it just requires the existing Congresscritters to do their dang jobs. Not holding my breath.
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is impossible until a critical mass of voters across every state starts putting competence and integrity ahead of their pet issue and populism. If you actually want to start making headway in this direction you have to stop voting for candidates in either of the main parties. The parties are probably not salvageable. Find a third party candidate with these qualities and vote for them and convince as many people…
A both-sides guy! How original! Choose the worst Democratic politician currently in office and please explain what they’ve done or said that is in any way comparable to what the Republican Party is doing.
This is completely missing the point. Structurally I don't believe either party is set up to allow truly quality candidates to succeed. They optimize for all the wrong things in their candidates. Candidates who are quality that get through tend to be exceptions. Picking the worst of either side is just furthering the "We can't vote for good candidates because they might lose to whoever we believe is the worst candidate on the other side" narrative. The only way out is to stop buying into that narrative in a large enough number.
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just need the rule of law for that. It helps to not elect blatantly corrupt people as president.
Problem is that apparently the US will occasionally elect a corrupt president, so we need stronger measures in place for when that happens.
We've got one. It's called impeachment. Unfortunately the system wasn't originally intended to have parties and party loyalties, and assumed that Congress would never have a majority to give a free pass to a corrupt President because he was their guy.
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you name some examples?
All parliamentary democracies. If you have the majority, you can’t even be removed through a vote of no confidence.
But you have a head of state who can, in theory, remove the head of government at their own discretion, right? In the US the head of state and the head of government are the same person.
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#247I think this both overstates and understates the case. The evidence being weak does not invalidate the decision; as the court notes, the government gets substantial deference on matters of national security. The invalidation comes from the fact that this is clearly retaliatory behavior for speech; and the evidence for this is fairly strong since the administration has made public statements to that effect. The eviden…
[flagged]
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#248It was a master stroke in international politics though, the US created an arms race towards sovereign ai, small models, and self-hosting - exactly like they wanted to. (sarcasm intended)
The Iran war and SoH crisis has been great for EV uptake outside of the US. In combination with the US AI apartheid, it has been a huge boost for Chinese EVs and Chinese AI adoption.
Hell, it's been decent (relatively) for pushing EV adoption within the US, too, in addition to renewable energy. This is not the first time that I've wondered if Donald Trump isn't secretly still a democrat at heart.
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#249As much as I dislike this administration's actions, why? Doesn't the Department of Defense get discretion to contract for whatever reasons it likes, as long as they think it serves public interests? If Pete Hegseth, who is albeit highly incompetent, decides that Anthropic's values don't match with those of the DoD, isn't that entirely his call to make? Unless there's very specific circumstances at play, Hegseth is at…
Judges at this level often do things like this, and given it was brought in California likely the next level would also block the administration. That said, the Supreme Court has been pretty clear that the executive branch has broad and the only authority to designate supply chain risk. That said, they do need to justify it, not sure they did it well enough here, but this is far from an impartial judge. Also, judges…
The trump administration has a long track record of doing illegal things that were struck down in countless courts across the country, so the more likely scenario is that this is yet another mark on that record. This isn't even the first one this week.
As for your legal arguments, it doesn't seem like they are currently correct, but I guess things can always change.
Re: Judge rules Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
All parliamentary democracies. If you have the majority, you can’t even be removed through a vote of no confidence.
But you have a head of state who can, in theory, remove the head of government at their own discretion, right? In the US the head of state and the head of government are the same person.
Yes in theory, the King Charles III and/or his representative the Governor General, could remove the Prime Minister, though the Governor General is chosen following advice (i.e. choice) of the Prime Minister, so I can't imagine that happening in practice.