Absolutely, and they discussed this. The “problem” with that is the results of a class action are binding on the class, win or lose. So it’s possible that you’re a member of the # Million person class-action claiming to be exempt from deportation because of X (because you didn’t opt-out) and the class could lose.
The Universal Injunctions were a one-way rule. If the government lost any one case, the injunction would apply against the government in every other instance. However, if the government won, only that one person would be deported and the opposition would be free to try the same argument again with any of the other judges.
Heh. Corollary: By joining the class, one is setting themselves up as a target by feeding targeting data for ICE into the Court system. The government doesn't even have to look for you now, because you self-selected into the class.
Christ almighty. This is why we can't have nice things.
Universal injunctions are superfluous. If the law says the government cannot do X, then who is a judge to command that the government not do X? That’s the legislature’s job. Judges have no authority to create rules saying people shall and shall not do certain things. That’s called passing a law. Similarly, when a party violates an injunction, who is the Judge to enforce his command? If it within a case or controversy between litigants, then that is one thing. When the judge they’re going to proactively punish someone any time the law as against anyone… that’s a purely executive function.
In terms of efficiency, it’s more efficient. Those in favor of universal injunctions are saying there should be hundreds of judges all racing to rule over the government, and to have their opinions control in the abstract as to cases that aren’t even before them.
If the government forces the same issue over and over there are plenty of remedies at hand: 1983 civil penalties against officers, sanctions against attorneys for frivolous arguments, and ultimately the court can hand the legislature everything it needs to impeach and remove a president by ruling that he / she is intentionally failing to enforce the law.
So the purpose of the judiciary branch is to interpret the laws. If a judge rules that the government is violating the law, you want the government to continue to be allowed to violate the law until the legislature convenes a hearing and rules and then what? The judiciary branch was able to rule on punishment for violating the rules, fines and jail time and what not. You would push all that to the legislature as well? Or would the legislature run a hearing and then ask the judiciary branch to pick the punishment and then have the legislature apply it?
I just don't understand how you expect this to work unless the point is to make the judiciary branch entirely pointless (for government level check and balances).
This is the same Supreme Court that granted the president immunity from any and all criminal charges as long they were made under the umbrella of the presidency. None of this is normal, and these are radical interpretations of the law explicitly designed to grant the president king like powers and reform the government into an authoritarian regime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
Sovereign Immunity is an idea that has a long precedence.
The Supreme Court was arguing that bad behaviour by the President is resolved through impeachment, and once they are out of office they are subject to criminal charges.
Almost any idea has long precedence, but the confluence of recent rulings, taken in its aggregate, provides a pretty well defined toolkit for a major departure from the normative state into the prerogative state. No amount of intellectual Zamboni reasoning can change the fact that it’s obvious to any rational observer that the U.S. is speed running an authoritarian takeover. Naturally some will support these changes and others will oppose them, but it’s as objectively verifiable as climate change; albeit, with the same chorus of denialism.
The constitution is the supreme law for that: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, … shall be eligible to the Office of President” “This Constitution, … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
A declaration of war is an invitation for the other side to attack. Rather than being a restraint against war, empowering Congress to declare war allows them to force a potentially unwilling president into war.
Public research is just government subsidies to corporations, which acquire IP for pennies on the dollar for their own profits while leaving taxpayers with the chaff. It’s a net loss for the public good who has to pay twice.
There is a very long and expensive path from basic research IP to a profitable drug. Private pharma companies already bear the risk of the drug development pipeline, which has a very low probability of success and takes many years. Adding fundamental research to that pipeline would make these companies a riskier investment.
This article is about NASA, and the existence of a large and successful pharmaceutical company industry proves that when there is a public good to be achieved, there is private funding for the research.
The OP asked for an answer, and the fallacy I’m trying to point out is this assumption that “all” research is generally worthwhile. And I don’t mean just that there are exceptions, but swaths of topics and institutions and researchers and methods that aren’t really adding anything of value. Some areas, like aerospace, have been the focus of intense research for a long long time. This is to the point where SpaceX has been able to walk in and build a space program from scratch. I don’t mean to minimize their hard work, but it just shows that we’re not in the 1930s anymore. It makes sense that you should occasionally adjust your priorities from time to time based on your needs.
Apologies for the tangents away from NASA - I was just replying to one of the parent comments that mentioned medical research
I don't think all research is worthwhile; I think grant proposals should get shot down if the lab/idea isn't up to snuff.
I'm happy for companies to do R&D! There's lot of examples over the years (Bell labs, Google, etc). I just don't think it makes sense in high risk situations with long reward lag times. The exceptions will be the really, really big companies flush with cash, which has its own issues.
No one said that all research is of value. The problem with basic research is that you don't know whether it will be of value untill you do the research. All research is potentially of value. The risk of such research is why the government has historically supported it and why so many world-changing ideas come out of gov research programs.
Private investment is risk-averse: they will support reliable short term gains over dubious long term breakthroughs. That's fine, but history has shown it's not the best way.
No, public research is an investment. The job of the government is to spend money on things that help the country's people. That includes roads, the military, and science.
Research is public funded because it creates public good. Most basic research is not profitable which is why it is in the publics best interests to subsidize it rather than rely in the whims of corporations.
Even then ROI for taxpayers is staggeringly huge in the long run. Calling it a "net-loss" is ... well. It is flat-earth level thinking.
I would read the constitution and come to terms with the fact that the executive authority is vested in a president. It’s not quite a king, because it’s not passed down by inheritance and they can’t enact laws by fiat… but the president is supremely powerful during their term.
And that’s good. There’s no denying that the executive branch (its agencies, officers, regulators, etc) is supremely powerful. The only question is whether the public have any democratic control over the exercise of that authority.
If OpenAI just provides AI, then the various IDEs development wrappers / IDEs / low-code etc. can collectively bargain against OpenAI for low rates. If OpenAI has an alternative, then they can charge higher rates for all plugins/ etc. and give the market an alternative.
Enterprises won't require less software. If they require fewer software engineers, that would be those few engineers producing so much more software with better tools, for example, AI wrappers.
Yeah but we can already see that it doesn't work like that.
If you need to write a lot of code I guess, but that's really rare, like saying "I need to write a lot of laws. I need to write 50 new laws by Tuesday with at least 15000 words of new regulation to one-up my rival legislator who wrote 40 new laws last week"
If software engineers are more effective, I would expect there to be more software engineers. They’ll put out more and better code. More code means more engineers.
The contrary view is like saying gold miners are finding more gold, and it’s easier than ever, so we expect folks are going to leave town.
LLMs aren't the cause of mass layoffs and hiring freezes. The end of ZIRP, uncertainty in the macro and offshoring are the cause. AI is just something executives like to say recently when they do layoffs ("we'll be more efficient with cutting edge technology!").
I think there's real pressure from investors to show that some of your human costs will be going away.
After all most of those investors are deeply invested in AI technology already. At the valuation, they need to be able to show that it replaces human workers because that's the specific kind of greed that is driving the value of the stock.
And if you see your competition tighten their belt then you should tighten yours right? So without proof companies are acting like they can use a small number of human-ai hybrid workers. There's strong peer pressure to think that way as a direct result of AI
That's fair, but enterprises are often naive and prone to groupthink.
It was just a few years ago when automakers and rental car companies unanimously decided (has they had been told to decide) that COVID-19 would reduce demand for cars. They cut production, sold off fleets, and almost immediately found themselves unable to keep up with demand.
Judges always mess this up. They act like their words have power. They issue one injunction, the party violates it in a flagrant manner, then the judge issues a new injunction.
You have to impose a coercive doubling fine, or something like that. Say $10 Million on day 1, $20 Million on day two, until compliance is secured.
Incarcerating someone until they comply is a tried and true approach, but it’s complicated with a company.
Who do you jail? The CEO? What if he’s directed his subordinates to comply and they simply know he doesn’t really want them to? It’s hard to jail those lower down the food chain, because does Apple even care? I don’t know that would be effective. They might get indignant and use it as a rallying cry, because it doesn’t really cost the business anything.
A more comparable analogy would be to enjoin Apple from selling the relevant products, e.g. they cannot collect any commissions until they comply.
Jail is a good punishment, but not a very effective form of coercion when the wrongdoer is a business.
Quality is also an undefined variable, because people may pay 10% more for an American made product that is of comparable quality, but they may also be willing to pay 110% more if the Asian counterpart is poor quality.
When you’re using the same exact photos, there’s no discernible quality difference.
Ironically, perhaps, but in 2025 I'd argue the Asian counterpart would probably be of higher quality, at least in the initial transition back to US manufacturing. AND it would be cheaper.
The Universal Injunctions were a one-way rule. If the government lost any one case, the injunction would apply against the government in every other instance. However, if the government won, only that one person would be deported and the opposition would be free to try the same argument again with any of the other judges.