this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
905 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

58009 readers
3065 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 128 points 3 weeks ago (18 children)

The fact that we just left it up to them to recuse themselves is a major unchecked flaw.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 43 points 3 weeks ago (17 children)

Our founding morons were the most naive idiots in existence... Sure they lived in a different time, but how could you possibly look back at any time in history and say "it's ok only moral people get positions of power so we'll play by the honor system."

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 30 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

US citizens give way WAY too much credit to their founders. Calling them "founding fathers" almost sounds like it's a religion. I'm sure they were smart guys in their time, but they too were flawed and made a shit tonne of mistakes, like everybody else. Just fix those mistakes already.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It's totally cringe when people call those slavers their daddies. Definitely a symptom of a much larger, wacko cult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They were fans of Montesquieu, but they also thought the VP should be the runner up in the election and that self interest would prevent one group from attaining too much power

In this case for example: the judge would want to avoid being labeled as partial because he would ruin his family name and lose his profession

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not just that. People fought duels over their honor in the past. We don't have duels anymore, so we shouldn't rely on a judge to recuse themselves.

It is a founding concept of European law that no one should be a judge in their own case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 weeks ago

Duelling wouldn’t apply to this case

For obvious reasons a judge wouldn’t duel parties in a civil (or criminal) case but also the judge would be ruining his own honour

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Most of them were barely old enough to be fathers. Sure you had a few old guys, but most of the idea men were in their 20s or early 30s.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

yep. be specific - Committee of Five

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)