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

261–270 of 475 posts

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

#261

Post by BeetleB »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #122
Arodex wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe read about the case and the reasoning of the judge before saying things that aren't pertinent. "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics"

What I said is pertinent: Anthropic refusing to build software for autonomous weapons platforms is a national security issue. They have the capability, but they just don't want to do it because they don't feel like it. Soldiers don't need to die because a company is stubborn.

> They have the capability, but they just don't want to do it because they don't feel like it.

Well, the US does have this whole "freedom" thing. Which said soldiers presumably fight for companies like Anthropic to have.

Are you seriously saying the US government should be able to compel individual companies to make things?

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

#262

Post by abjhn »

inigyou wrote: post #56
bruce511 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need to be part of the administration. More than 50% of voters voted for Trump. Even today >30% (of everyone) think he's doing a good job. (Ie about equal to the voters in absolute number terms). Lots of people believe eat he is doing is legal simply because he is doing it.

Well it is. They literally made a law saying whatever the president does is legal because he's the president.

[dead]

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

#263

Post by [deleted] »

lettergram wrote: post #231
manlymuppet wrote: post #220

As 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…

[deleted]

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

#265

Post by georgemcbay »

bsian wrote: post #233
crassus_ed wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As they said during Louis the 14th's reign: "Si veut le roi, si veut la loi.", which translates to the law wants what the king wants.

In most modern democratic countries (I don't know about the US, since I'm European) executive and legislative branches are one and the same, so that still holds up!

> In most modern democratic countries (I don't know about the US, since I'm European) executive and legislative branches are one and the same, so that still holds up!

In the US we have had legitimate separation of powers between executive, legislative and judicial branches through much of our history and some of my lifetime (I'm almost 53).

We don't anymore.

The Republican-majority Congress has completely abdicated all of its power to the Republican executive and the Republican-majority Supreme Court barely tries to act like it is non-partisan anymore.

The non-Supreme Court judicial system is still (as can been seen by this ruling) functioning as intended, but there's a limit to how helpful that is when the top court is clearly in the bag, and if the other systems of checks and balances aren't repaired quickly it is only a matter of time until enough hyper partisan judges are installed at the lower levels to end that too.

The beginnings of the crumbling of our checks and balances pre-date the Trump era, though they've accelerated greatly during the Trump era. Even before Trump Congress had abdicated much of its power in matters of declaring war, for example.

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

#266

Post by rithdmc »

rootusrootus wrote: post #246
bsian wrote: post #240

Earlier 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.

Speaking for, and possibly misunderstanding, the situation in Ireland:

> But you have a head of state

Yes! Our president.

> who can, in theory, remove the head of government at their own discretion

Ah. No.

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

#269

Post by iamatworknow »

iAMkenough wrote: post #184
digitaltrees wrote: post #154

When 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.

Start with the Supreme Court, who determined “official acts” are to be presumed legal. With no standards test for what qualifies as an official act or not.

While we're at it, term limits for everyone. All levels of the judiciary and legislature.

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

#270

Post by ecocentrik »

superxpro12 wrote: post #247
andrewla wrote: post #187

I 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]

Politics is frequently a game of semantic drift. The application of labels with unclear meaning to further dilute meaning or extend it for the purpose of engagement, legal reclassification... it's not engineering and you can't expect well defined terms from people who want power without accountability.
Post reply on HN