SCOTUS judges 'doxxed' after overturning Roe v Wade The US Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade last month may have been doxxed – had their personal information including physical and IP addresses, and credit card info revealed – according to threat intel firm Cybersixgill. As expected, the fallout from the controversial ruling, which reversed the court's 1973 …
Long ago, in the dark mists of time, I would’ve enjoyed watching the cognitive dissonance at play as they etched our custom protections for themselves and nobody else using some worrisome legal “logic”…
Not so much anymore, as I can only shudder at what overblown, poorly thought out, and poorly implemented systems they’ll put in place to ensure their own safety and comfort (that we, the peons won’t benefit from).
I’m sure it’ll all be fine, above board, and respect the rights of all citizens, at the very least!
I detect sarcasm dripping into puddles on the floor. Have a cold one for that.
And yes, the Supremes (the court not the women singers) are demanding that they be protected. I'm wondering when they'll start building moats around their homes with a large assortment of armed guards, maybe some trained bears..
You know, the constitution also does not mention electricity, internet, female equality (yes they were given the vote, but nowehere does it state they are equal to men), LTGB rights, NASA, DHS, airports, etc
So, how about SCOTUS rules that all those explicitly not mentioned in the constitution are not federal issues and they are to be decided by the states?
That will be fun times. Travel from one state to another and suddenly things turn legal or illegal.
PS : Not am American, not visited USA.
Way back in the development of the English language a male was a werman (w pronounced as f or v) and a female was a woman, man was singular person and men, the plural.
So it could easily be argued that the all men are created equal part of that countrys very ragged and nearly destroyed constitution already includes all people. As their highest court is happy to dig back beyond when their country was even a thing it should pose no issues to go back another 5 or 600 years regarding the language.
So, how about SCOTUS rules that all those explicitly not mentioned in the constitution are not federal issues and they are to be decided by the states?
That is essentially what Thomas advocated in his concurring opinion. Except for overturning Loving v. Virginia, since that protects his own marriage. One rule for him, another for everyone else.
Thomas has, of course, also advocated things like corporal punishment in schools.
"Except for overturning Loving v. Virginia, since that protects his own marriage."
It surprises me that the US states each make their own laws about the age of marriage. Several have no lower age threshold. In practice that means children, mainly girls, are still being legally married at the age of 11 to much older partners. Basically it is a parental and judge's option - sometimes when a girl has been raped by the putative husband but also "tradition".
It is a legal fact that many USA states have allowed such marriages even in recent years.
This article from the Independent a few years ago gives some of the facts and figures. Not much has changed since then.
A quote:
"The youngest wedded were three 10-year-old girls in Tennessee who married men aged 24, 25 and 31 in 2001. The youngest groom was an 11-year-old who married a 27-year-old woman in the same state in 2006.
Children as young as 12 were granted marriage licences in Alaska, Louisiana and South Carolina, while 11 other states allowed 13-year-olds to wed.
More than 1,000 children aged 14 or under were granted marriage licences.
"
"the constitution provides no specifically enumerated right to privacy..."
You're barking up the wrong tree there. This is far more than an invasion of privacy. Publishing private home addresses and vehicle details of state officials or public persons (and spouses thereof) is inviting and inciting physical violence against these people. There is really no other reason for this data being published.
It is also an (attempted or actual) intimidation of a state official, which is a direct attack on the independent judiciary as one of the pillars of modern liberal democracy.
Now don't get me wrong, I truly believe the Roe v Wade overturning was wrong both morally and judicially, and the newly appointed conservative judges on the Supreme Court (and many others on state and local courts) have been appointed based on politics not merit. There's an argument for a more independent judiciary, and general democratic reform which is long overdue.
But if what you are saying, at the root, is "I don't agree with this state official's decision therefore it's OK to target them", you're opening the door for anyone else to do that, and that way lies chaos and a continued unraveling of democratic norms. Consider what your reaction would have been if the Supreme Court didn't overturn Roe, and it was right-wing lunatics posting the liberal judges' home adresses??
Of course, another problem is that the rest of the world looks at America and sees a justice system that increasingly looks poorer than many third world countries.
You have political appointees deciding who gets prosecuted, politically appointed judges applying creative interpretation to what laws actually say, and legalised blackmail in "plea bargaining".
You guys ought to either go all the full way and have politically appointed Juries as well, or depoliticise the entire justice system like other countries have done.
"How about - to highlight to the judiciary that there exists a terrifying amount of information about everyone which should be protected by law."
Yes indeed. There should be a huge risk to storing PII. If C-level execs might be subject to jail time and companies subject to business ending fines, perhaps more companies would put more of an effort in securing information they're holding or decide to not keep it at all. If judges and lawmakers have their noses rubbed in the problem, they might do something. Whether that "something" is useful or not remains to be seen.
One would think that members of the highest court in the country would have much better security but, sigh, I guess not.
Yours is a strawman arguement.
The far right has already proven their violence and disregard for the Constitution and laws and rights.
When there is no one else left to appeal to, the citizens have the right take back their rights any way they see fit. That is the very foundation of the U.S.
If you or anyone else cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, a simple ethics class and common law class will fix that.
"It is also an (attempted or actual) intimidation of a state official, which is a direct attack on the independent judiciary as one of the pillars of modern liberal democracy."
While in the main correct, it also highlights to the people that matter that this data was NOT properly secured and easily accessible so that it could be published. The reason it was so easily accessible is because there are no strong punishments for those people holding the data insecurely in the first place and this sort of things happens to millions of people on a daily basis and maybe it's time to look into this.
>they'd not care.
They would go on whatever fundamentalist/born again channel that will accept their $donation, where they can make a big show of admitting to their "sin" and being led by the devil etc. and all the other religo-fanatics will accept their repentance.
Naturally, after this they will return to delivering the devils agenda by making other peoples lives miserable, although they will see it as doing "gods work"...
You misunderstand the ruling - it does not ban abortion. They have said that the state legislatures are the appropriate place for laws regarding abortion to be passed, rather than as a result of a court forcing ALL states to go one way or another.
If you do not like the laws in any one state you have 3 options;
1. campaign against the legislators on the "other" side and support "your" side and get the laws changed.
2. move to a state with more congenial laws
3. obey the law as it stands
The problem with (2) is that sooner or later you are likely to run out of states to move to.
And sadly, the problem with (1) is that the binary nature of the issue and a two-party system means that negotiated solutions are pretty much ruled out. It's all a question of who shouts loudest.
No, the problem with (2) is that the post-Roe states are also planning to introduce legislation to prosecute women who travel across state lines to procure an abortion. Some, I think, have already done it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
