Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous comment about Gina Carano’s lawsuit against Disney, in response to another commenter asserting that “all she’s asking for is consistency”:

What makes you think she’s entitled to it?

Disney is not bound by her subjective personal view of what she said.

In second place, we’ve got a comment from mick responding to the claim that recent rulings from SCOTUS don’t amount to “legislating from the bench”:

Here’s why you’re (very obviously) wrong:

This is a massive power grab by the judiciary, because now what used to be covered by Chevron deference will instead wind up in court, allowing the courts — particularly SCOTUS — to choose which regulations they like and which they don’t.

Similarly, their Presidential immunity decision was also a massive power grab, because they’ve given immunity to “official duties” without defining those duties. So again, it will be up to the Court to decide, via the inevitable lawsuits, which presidential activities they approve of that are covered by official duties (which will be whatever a Republican does) and what isn’t covered.

It’s worth remembering that SCOTUS chose the president in 2000 based not on law (in fact, they specifically said that their decision wasn’t precedential) but on party affiliation. The idea that that partisanship won’t continue and isn’t THE ENTIRE POINT of throwing out Chevron is asinine.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with an anonymous response to speculation about whether SCOTUS will overturn Section 230 at its next opportunity:

Not all that likely. Justice Thomas is one of nine, and most of the other eight seem perfectly content to let Section 230 stay. Not to mention, for all of their faults (their many, many faults), SCOTUS has been pretty damned good overall on the First Amendment.

Besides, remember that they already had a chance, and the case was so bad even Thomas couldn’t bring himself to vote against 230.

Next, it’s David with a comment about concerns that a consent decree aiming to increase police accountability will lead to a mass exodus of officers:

Uh yes, making officers leave that cannot be bothered to maintain the laws is the intended effect.

It’s like the Supreme Court saying that making presidents criminally accountable for their deeds would have a chilling effect on them.

The whole point of laws is to have a chilling effect. Putting people in power outside of the law’s purview is weakening the rule of law, not strengthening it.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous comment on our post about the toothlessness of Minnesota’s law saying police officers “must” inform drivers of why they’ve been pulled over:

cop: You know why I pulled you over?

you: If you don’t know, I’m not gonna tell ya.

In second place, it’s an anonymous comment on Karl’s post about Paramount axing Comedy Central content, and specifically the headline referring to “brunchlord dysfunction”:

Serious question Karl…what do you have against brunch???

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with an anonymous comment on our post about Elon Musk threatening to sue GARM shortly after ExTwitter rejoined it:

See Mike, this is why Elon is a billionaire and you are not.
Instead of writing this obviously wrong article, you should have noted that SpaceX has never offered a reusable rocket in TechDirt’s daily deal, even though 100% of the reader will buy one, for the right price.
Therefore, SpaceX (and others) are illegally boycotting TechDirt, and they owe it money.

Finally, it’s Rico R. with another comment on that post, which Mike wrote while in the middle of a vacation, this time latching on to the final line:

Not gonna lie, the last line sounds like an apt slogan for a lot of articles here…

Techdirt:
“I should have stayed off the internet even longer.”

That’s all for this week, folks!