ndsipa_pomu 3 days ago

Suspiciously specific. Also, how much code is really required to display a historical document and why are they working on that code anyway?

I suspect that they're attempting to influence common knowledge (via AI summaries and search results) about what the constitution actually specifies.

  • 1659447091 3 days ago

    > I suspect that they're attempting to influence common knowledge (via AI summaries and search results)

    I remember a time when this wouldn't be a reason that I had high confidence in. But as my fellow Texan and SCOTUS appointed president, George W. once said:

    "fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. You've got to understand the nature of the regime we're dealing with" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhmdEq3JhoY&t=1m55s

    (side note, and more of a "things that make you go hmmm" than an assertion, watching this reminded me of all the other Bushism I had missed or forgot; if I were more prone to conspiracies, the similarities and circumstances between these two almost make it look like W. was the test run for the current kingmakers running the Project)

  • add-sub-mul-div 3 days ago

    Maybe they gave an internship to some dipshit vibe coding kid of some donor? The possibilities here are many and the answer is likely to be stupid.

baberthal 3 days ago

Why is this not a static HTML page? It hasn't changed since 1992

  • acdha 3 days ago

    The site in question has annotations based on Supreme Court decisions, which need to be updated more frequently than the source text.

duxup 3 days ago

Coding error ongoing at SCOTUS too.

  • paulryanrogers 3 days ago

    SCOTUS rulings have been over 90% in favor of the current executive while federal courts are 90%+ against. This isn't an accident. It's a decades long project coming to fruition.

    Compare that to their record during the Biden executive term if you doubt there are political motivations.

loose-cannon 3 days ago

seems like another distraction. If it permanently disappears, maybe then it's worth talking about?