The Supreme Court - Interpreting the laws by candlelight
Jademonkey79
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So while the hearings began over pretty silly case of Employer vs. Employee, it came to light that most, if not all, of our Supreme Court Justices have no idea what role technology plays in our society.
"The first sign was about midway through the argument, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. - who is known to write out his opinions in long hand with pen and paper instead of a computer - asked what the difference was “between email and a pager?” "
I can't help but think that this is a big deal. When these people bring down a judgement, that shit sticks for a long time. How can someone who is so woefully out of touch with society as to think pagers are still "the big thing" adequately define the legal parameters of our society? It's as if we keep these ancient Oracles locked away in a cave, hidden from the world, only to be brought out to "read the bones".
Do you think this is just silly nitpicking or does this represent a pretty large disconnect between the justices and the rest of the country?
"The first sign was about midway through the argument, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. - who is known to write out his opinions in long hand with pen and paper instead of a computer - asked what the difference was “between email and a pager?” "
I can't help but think that this is a big deal. When these people bring down a judgement, that shit sticks for a long time. How can someone who is so woefully out of touch with society as to think pagers are still "the big thing" adequately define the legal parameters of our society? It's as if we keep these ancient Oracles locked away in a cave, hidden from the world, only to be brought out to "read the bones".
Do you think this is just silly nitpicking or does this represent a pretty large disconnect between the justices and the rest of the country?
"We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."
Jademonkey79 on
0
Posts
There is also the other issue which is - does this actually matter? If we assume these are people who learn quickly when it's relevant, then potentially they are well-positioned to make judgements on these things when it comes to legal matters.
Of course if we go by Anton Scalia, this isn't the case.
I think it would definitely matter in cases where technology is the basis for the argument. Right now I'm thinking Net Neutrality, wiretapping access, and other such situations.
I thought about that, then read this:
At one point, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked what would happen if a text message was sent to an officer at the same time he was sending one to someone else. Does it say: ‘Your call is important to us, and we will get back to you?’” Kennedy asked.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrangled a bit with the idea of a service provider.
“You mean (the text) doesn’t go right to me?” he asked.
Then he asked whether they can be printed out in hard copy.
The idea that older people are technology-illiterate is sad but not at all surprising. Besides, aside from the one comment by Roberts you pointed, the other questions the SC judges asked that are on the page you linked were legitimate for individuals who are not technology-minded. If that's the worst of it, it's not worrying.
Pretty much; I think the Justices probably aren't experts - or even all that well-acquainted - with the practices of animal cruelty/dog fighting/crush videos, but it's part of the advocates' jobs to make sure sufficient information is provided to them so that arguments can be understood.
Barring that, I'm reasonably sure the Justices' clerks can fill them in on the broadstrokes of email and Twitter.
The middle-servers are completely transparent to the user, so I'm not at all surprised that someone would be under the impression that there are none.
Now that I think about it, I'm actually a bit surprised that no one came up with a pager with a USB port so you can hook it up to your computer and read/print your messages.
Ok, so yeah, he probably should know they are talking about 2 way pagers, that I think tend to send stuff, I guess, via sms. He's trying to find out how that would be different from a blackberry sending e-mail, or whatever. The article talks about him asking questions about service providers(because sms is being provided by att, or whatever someone fairly common carrierish, and e-mail travels through company owned servers, privacy expectations would be a bit diffrent), and ablity to produce hard copies... like, they aren't bad questions to be asking if you are trying to understand a newish technology in comparison to things covered by existing laws.
Some of that might be a little thin. I might be putting thoughts in an empty head, but in the context they aren't horrible questions for someone to be asking. The guy admits his ignorance, and seeks to rectify it and does so not unintelligently.
Judges are old when they receive their lifetime appointments. They are always going to be somewhat out of touch. I don't know if there is much to take issue with when a justice actually recognizes that to some extent and seeks to resolve it in what is a pretty public forum.
It is really easy to cherry pick instances of justices being out of touch with reality. I could flip out for a good long while about intellectual property laws, and privacy stuff, and first amendment rights... in this specific case... I don't think too much is amiss.
Should they also know science, too? Biology? Medicine? Climatology? Ecology? Chemistry? Geology? Pharmacology?
I dunno, might be important in cases involving pollution or drug legalization. How could they rule on Raich v. Gonzales when they don't even know the difference between a serotonin receptor and a cannabinoid receptor!?!
This is what expert testimony is for.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I see where everyone is coming from. I just find it a little strange that these folks are so removed from technology that most of us use every day.
A question of timing. By the time the USB standard was ubiquitious and people thought of using it for mobile devices, pagers had largely been supplanted by more versatile devices.
Honestly, I agree that tech unfamiliarity for this particular case isn't a big deal, as the tech used is really tangential to the legal question. It's when the tech is central to the subject of the decision (like the OP said, wiretapping or net neutrality) that this becomes more of a concern.
Vetting based on tech knowledge? Not sure how to accomplish that in a useful manner.
Old people, different from young people. News at 11.
I'm not even saying like "Explain packet switching". More to the tune of "How familiar would you say you are with technology" and just go from there. So many completely useless and partisan questions are brought up and repeated during these confirmations, I guess it would be nice to know that the person we're putting in that particular seat doesn't think teletype is the next big thing. :P
As well as - to some extent - amicus curiae briefs.
I don't think the court should get harped on for asking some of the questions here. They're charged with being experts in jurisprudence, and have support systems which, we hope, provide them with the necessary information regarding science, technology, or what have you.
It wold be a somewhat meaningless gesture,Kennedy was appointed under Reagan. I'm sure Sotomayor know what email is, but give her 20 years and she'll be hopelessly out of date as well. Its one of the downsides of lifetime appointments.
Most of the people using that technology don't.
Surprise!
Even a user of the technology wouldn't need to ask the question.
Edit: The question basically asked if you got a busy signal when texting someone currently using their phone.
Diebold: Giving you 6-4 decisions, because we count votes good.
So a Justice should have to have sent a text message to be able to rule on this?
As has been pointed out, should the same go for dog fights?
And it should all be televised.
Really, though, the Justice should know that he won't get a "your ball is very important to us" message if he tries to interact with more than one dog.
Ted Stevens: The man who would harness the infinite power of the aurora borealis.
The point is, their understanding of the law is FAR more important. They can learn anything that they need to about texting and/or sexting in order to come to a verdict as necessary.
If the justices were REFUSING to ask, and making decisions based on a lack of knowledge, THAT would be an issue, but the fact that they are asking shows me that they are doing EXACTLY what they should be doing.
And I agree that the proceedings should be televised, which is something, if I recall correctly, Sotomayor is a proponent of.
Why does the judge need to know that instead of asking the question and reflecting on the answer and the possible legal implication?
What the fuck is wrong with asking any kind of question as long as you don't go ahead and construct an uninformed opinion? Should she just assume that, as her phone works that way - everybody's does? Do you believe that if you poll the population at large with "Do all phone carries..." ahead of the question, you'd get any certainty in the answer?
The expertise of those people is law and that article is a cheap shot at "olol, senile old justices"!
Edit: Exactly what Evander said above.
But then we'd probably have more than a few cases of the third child, and I, personally, don't want to explain the story of passover every time the court convenes.
You go for the short version: "They tried to kill us. We lived. Let's eat."
I can see that position. I can also see situations where technology is going to move faster than laws and in the end, these people will need to make some type of informed decision on the technology. As others have said, that's why you'd hope that they'd be getting the correct information.
I'm not stating that this article is a lollercaust of old people silliness, I'm just using it as a platform to ask the question whether it's important for Supreme Court justices to have a basic understanding of the technology in question. Your snark is duly noted.
Unfortunately, she wants it televised on Telemundo.
This is a weird issue to be worried about, frankly. The Supreme Court doesn't get involved in factual questions- they are dealing strictly with legal issues.
Rigorous Scholarship
It's not as bad for judges as it is for lawmakers, as judges have to "show their work" and the court documents are public record.
I guess I'm not being coherent here. The basic concern is that judges are too busy to keep current on rapidly changing fields, and that the people who try to bring them up to speed may not be up to the task due to unfamiliarity, the volume of information, or even bias. We rely on judges (especially in the higher courts) to be able to work through a enormous amount of material to determine what is and isn't relevant to a particular case. If you have something that shows a misunderstanding or a lack of briefing on a basic part of a case, it causes concern (perhaps overwrought) over the quality of the rest of the information.
And in the end, I guess that's all that I found strange. I'm not worried about this anymore than I'm worried about Presidential candidates being unable to list newspapers or say "Google" correctly. In my mind, it was hard to conceptualize giving legal opinions on subjects that you appeared to have only a cursory knowledge of. I get that if there was a case involving human cloning they'd need to ask as many questions as they could imagine. It was just strange to see someone basically say "So these telephones....you can just talk to people through them?".
Fine by me, as long as they read opinions on air with the gusto normally reserved for futbol goals!