AFAIK, the unilateral nature of TOS/EULA agreements in the day of Software as a Service hasn’t been litigated. Which means there isn’t a court’s opinion on the scope or limits of a TOS/EULA and what changes can be made.

Currently, Adobe has the full force of contract law to initiate this change without any input from consumers because a case about this has never made it to the courts.

It’ll be interesting to see where this goes, but Adobe will likely backpedal on their language in the TOS before any case gets to a Judge because the last thing any company wants is for a TOS/EULA agreement to be fundamentally undermined by a court.

Likely the only reason why the SC came down on this the way they did was because of the nebulous standing.

Generally, you can’t come to court without a realized injury. Meaning you’ve been actually hurt, not that you have the potential to be hurt. It’s the difference between arguing “This law may prevent me from getting a marriage certificate as a homosexual individual” and “I legally applied for a marriage license and was denied one”. Whether or not you think it’s a good idea, it reduces the case load of courts around the country.

The Mifepristone case was brought all the SC by a group of people who couldn’t show an actual injury. Their arguments all centered around “Some of the people we represent might be affected by the fact that Mifepristone is so flagrantly prescribed, and dealing with the fallout of an abortion goes against the beliefs of these specific people we represent”. And the SC rejected that on standing alone, because it would open the flood gates for all sorts of lawsuits. “My child is threatened by the manufacture of AR-15 rifles by X company because they’re used in school shootings!” etc.

That is the only reason why this case was decided the way it was. If you want to protect Women’s rights, you need to turn out in your local elections every chance you get.

The founding Fathers likely couldn’t imagine a Congress that wouldn’t impeach a Supreme Court Justice for such flagrant self-enrichment. But they were thinking about Congress as a more ideological body rather than a political entity. They couldn’t imagine Justices being aligned with political bodies; that was part of the idea of a lifetime appointment. Put someone in a job for life and they should be immune from partisan political bullshit from the outside.

They couldn’t envision justices who would trade everything for a lifetime appointment to support their preferred political flavor.

IMO, the solution is to let every President nominate a new SC justice, and retire the oldest one every election.

As a single father to two girls (ages 8 and 10) Republicans can fuck ALL of the way off. When they didn’t call out Mitch McConnell’s hypocrisy with Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland vs Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, you lost me for the rest of my life.

The part that really gets my goat on abortion is it only affects those without the means to travel. The rich and well connected (so basically every politician) can just fly to a country that treats its citizens with empathy when their daughter gets pregnant from a rape for an abortion, but they’ll look down from their ivory towers and tell MY daughter she somehow asked for it, and should therefore live with the consequences.

@anticolonialist@lemmy.world The choices this next election seem to be Biden or Trump. I can’t change who is running, I can only choose who I would pick to win. Who do you plan on voting for?