> demanding someone make their software exactly how you desire
IMO the way this should work is that Google can make their software however they want provided they don't do anything to stop me from changing it to work the way I want.
Unfortunately, they've already done a lot of things to stop me from changing it to work the way I want. SafetyNet, locked bootloaders, closed-source system apps, and now they're (maybe) trying to layer "you can't install apps we don't approve of" on top of that.
> IMO the way this should work is that Google can make their software however they want provided they don't do anything to stop me from changing it to work the way I want.
That's exactly how it is. You're free to get your soldering iron out, or your debugger and reverse engineer anything you want. I don't mean to argue unfairly, but all we're talking about here is the relative ease with which you can do what you want to do. How easy do they have to make it?
As for their software, as delivered, there are literally an infinite number of ways that it stops you from changing it. Maybe you want everything in Pig Latin, or a language you made up yourself. Do they have to design around this desire? Do they have to make this easy to do?
They didn't rule it unconstitutional - it's not. They ruled that the specific statute Trump was using that allows him to "regulate imports" doesn't include regulating imports with tariffs.
> They ruled that the specific statute Trump was using that allows him to "regulate imports" doesn't include regulating imports with tariffs.
Right, and thus because the Constitution gives congress the authority to levy tariffs, and the administration was usurping that authority, they violated the Constitution.
I think the root of the problem is our two party system and the polarization of our culture. Congress and the president often act as a single partisan unit, not a collection of independent thinkers with their own ideas about how the country should be run. That makes it very hard for congress to serve as an effective check on presidential powers.
Fully agree, but that's what happens when you keep piling laws on top of laws on top of laws and never go back and refactor. If I recall correctly, the case hinged on some vague wording in a semi-obscure law passed back in 1977.
The whole legal apparatus of the US doesn't want to hear that but your laws suck. They're flawed because of the political system borne of compromise with parties incapable of whipping their members to just vote in favour of a law they don't fully agree with.
"In fact, [proportional representation] robs him of personal responsibility; it makes of him a voting machine rather than a thinking and feeling person. In my view, this is by itself a sufficient argument against proportional representation. For what we need in politics are individuals who can judge on their own and who are prepared to carry personal responsibility."
That's the case in any country where a parliamentary body is split so closely.
When you need every vote to get legislature to pass, because you control 51% of a chamber, backbenchers on the ideological fringe of a party, (DINOs and RINOs) have a lot of power.
When you have a majority with comfortable margins, you can care a lot less about what the Sinemas and Manchins and McCains of a party think.
You're looking at the world with your American blinders on. The rest of the world's elected representatives vote with their party or they leave their party. What you're describing is a fundamentally American phenomenon.
But parties typically have to compromise with other parties in their coalition, so it would seem to amount to the same thing (compromise is required to pass legislation)?
Correct. The difference between FPTP and PR systems (Or countries with very strong regional parties) is that in a multi-party PR system, the coalition happens between party, in a FPTP two-party system, the coalition happens within the big tentpole parties.
There are many reasons for why two-party FPTP sucks, but this phenomena is present in multi-party systems, too. And, of course, sometimes politicians end up crossing the aisle, much to the chagrin of the party whip.
Old laws are often superseded or modified by newer legislation that's not novel or rare. This one wasn't because it hadn't been so roundly abused by previous presidents that it had been an issue worth taking up. It's the same with a lot of delegated powers, the flexibility and decreased response time is good when it's constrained by norms and the idea of independent agencies but a terrible idea when the supreme court has been slowly packed with little king makers in waiting wanting to invest all executive power in the President. [0]
[0] Unless that's power over the money (ie Federal Reserve) because that's a special and unique institution. (ie: they know giving the president the power over the money printer would be disastrous and they want to be racist and rich not racist and poor.)
Except that isn’t relevant at all. This Supreme Court is completely cooked. If the case was “can Trump dissolve New York as a state” you would still have 3 justices siding in his favor with some dog shit reasoning.
Read the opinions. Both are pretty reasonable. I think the dissent has a good point that a plain language interpretation of the term "regulate imports" would seem to include tariffs.
The bigger issue I think is that that statute exists in the first place. "Emergency powers" that a president can grant himself just by "declaring an emergency" on any pretense with no checks or balances is a stupid idea.
The original law (like many laws that delegated congressional authorities at the time) contained a legislative veto provision which gave the legislative final oversight of any administrative action. In the 80’s the Supreme Court found that legislative veto provisions were unconstitutional, but left all of those delegations standing. After that ruling, the administration can now do what it wanted without congressional oversight and the ability to veto any attempt to repeal the laws. In the oral arguments, Gorsuch raised the possibility that the law itself should have been found unconstitutional in the 80’s because the legislative veto was essential to its function. It looks like the court today took a minimalist approach, letting these delegations stand but minimizing the scope of the powers delegated.
Not a lawyer, but I found the majority opinion's position on "regulate" much more compelling than the dissent. In particular, the majority's argument that "regulate" is a pretty common function of the executive branch that in no other context implies the authority to tax (tariff), which is a pretty clear Article I power. The majority also convincingly argued that it seems unreasonable to interpret a law to broadly delegate Congressional power to the Executive branch without Congress making that intent explicit in the law. The dissent not only didn't make good counter arguments even read by themselves, but the majority opinion did a pretty good job refuting those arguments specifically.
It's obviously not that simple. If we follow your logic then we would expect that no previous President was able to enact tariffs. We obviously know that to be false as Presidents in the past have enacted a wide range of tariffs.
Well, not really because that part doesn't grant the US President arbitrary powers to perform any action that would result in regulation (for example, he is not given the power to go around killing random people even if doing so would effectively regulate international trade; he can't declare war on another country even if doing so would be the best way to effectuate regulation of trade with another country) it gives him the OBLIGATION to perform regulation, using the powers delegated to him.
If giving the US President unlimited and arbitrary authority as long as they can claim it was useful for meeting a legal obligation created by Congress were the correct interpretation then we need look no further than the "Take Care" clause of the US Constitution, where the US President is given the obligation to take care that all laws are faithfully executed -- which, with this interpretation, would mean that any action would be under the purview of the US President as long as they could claim at doing that action resulted in the laws being faithfully executed.
Indeed, if you want to case intuitional blame here, it’s far more Congress’ fault for forcing the court to split these linguistic hairs rather than address this issue head on themselves.
Kavanaugh's opinion seems to say "well, this would be too hard to undo, so we should just leave it alone and let Trump continue". That hardly seems 'reasonable'. Just lazy and/or partisan.
> The plaintiffs argue and the Court concludes that the President lacks authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs. I disagree. In accord with Judge Taranto’s careful and persuasive opinion in the Federal Circuit, I would conclude that the President’s power under IEEPA to “regulate . . . importation” encompasses tariffs. As a matter of ordinary meaning, including dictionary definitions and historical usage, the broad power to “regulate . . . importation” includes the traditional and common means to do so—in particular, quotas, embargoes, and tariffs.
That doesn't sound like "well, this would be too hard to undo" to me, and making that argument elsewhere doesn't diminish the main point.
> If the case was “can Trump dissolve New York as a state” you would still have 3 justices siding in his favor with some dog shit reasoning.
As a counter-example, if the case was, say, "can a college use race as a factor in admissions"[0], you get 3 justices siding in favor using dogshit reasoning, just from the other side of the aisle. It's a bit ridiculous to think there aren't Democrat partisan judges on the Supreme Court.
The Bakke decision in 1978 upheld that race could be used as a factor in admissions. Your counter-example is precedent from 50 years ago. Does that same precedent exist in this tariff case?
So you're saying if a teacher decides to use a book in class that's wholly inappropriate for the age group they're teaching we should ban the teacher, not the book?
I suppose that makes sense. But if the book in question is still available in the school library for any 7 year old to read or check out isn't that still a potential problem?
Books are already made available to different age groups in different ways. Libraries that serve different ages put different books on different shelves. There are books on shelves young kids can’t reach, and there are books behind the counter.
I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean. Like... yes? But my point was, a school may have a very wide range of age groups. A K-12 school will have students from ages ~4 to ~18. Even a regular primary school will have 7 year olds along with 14 year olds. Point being, a book that is inappropriate for the younger students at a school may not be for the older students; and I don't see why the older students shouldn't have access to those books.
It makes sense to me. They're blocked in Europe because of European government polices, not American ones.
Maybe there's some sort of legal immunity the US government could grant to domestic sites which would allow them to lift those blocks without fear of reprisal?
The law takes intent into consideration, candy makers are not intending to make someone addicted to their product. This lawsuit is showing the intent behind certain user experience features was to addict users, not just make it a sweet and nice place to be.
You think candy companies aren't doing everything they can to get repeat customers?
There's no law saying social media has to be a "sweet and nice place to be", and that was never the goal. They want to make it an interesting place to be so you keep coming back, and there's no law against that. Trying to create one ex post facto via the court system is a really dumb idea.
We may requires, high sugar food to be labeled like cigarettes, maximum portion size available (largest drink can be 500ml), put more tax on it, advertise against it, ban in schools, ban advertisements in children program/movies.
DNS has always been a single-point-of-failure for TLS cert issuance. The threat is real, but not at all unique to this validation method.
(For example, an attacker with control of DNS could switch the A record to their server and use that to pass HTTP-01 or TLS-ALPN-01 validation, or update the _acme-challenge TXT record and use that to pass DNS-01.)
While this is true, improvements in the TLS issuance process should also improve security. When the eventual deprecation of TLS-ALPN-01 and DNS-01 comes, this new method would be completely secure.
Here, the record could for example contain a signature from the same key pair used to authenticate the account. The alternative is DNSSEC, but that's avoided by a lot of domains.
Hot take: trying to restrict what front end people use to access your service is almost always an anti-competitive, anti-consumer freedom move which should be legally prohibited for those reasons. (Not just for AI, I'm talking about any and all cloud services.)
Regarding consumer freedom, I believe software running on user machines should serve the interests of the user, not the company who wrote the software or anyone else for that matter. Trying to force users to run a particular client written by your company violates this principle.
Regarding competition, forcing users to run a particular client is a form of anti competitive bundling, a naked attempt to prevent alternative clients from being able to enter the market unless they are able to build a competing backed as well. Such artificial "moats" are great for companies but harmful to consumers.
This is going to make it way easier to get publicly trusted certs for LAN servers that aren't internet facing.
I'm looking forward to every admin UI out there being able to generate a string you can just paste into a DNS record to instantly get a Let's Encrypt cert.
Just experienced this with my heavily networked off openclaw setup. I gave up and will do manual renewals until I have more time to figure out a good way of doing it. I was trying to get a cert for some headscale magic dns setups, but I think that's way more complicated than I thought it would be.
IMO the way this should work is that Google can make their software however they want provided they don't do anything to stop me from changing it to work the way I want.
Unfortunately, they've already done a lot of things to stop me from changing it to work the way I want. SafetyNet, locked bootloaders, closed-source system apps, and now they're (maybe) trying to layer "you can't install apps we don't approve of" on top of that.
reply