31–40 of 222 posts
[flagged]
You may not like the executive action rollercoaster, but it’s the one you’re on. Republicans would torpedo anything like this in Congress unless Democrats can get 60 non-centrist senators (which is not gonna happen). So you can either get this when Democrats are in the white house, or you can just not get it at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may not like the executive action rollercoaster, but it’s the one you’re on. Republicans would torpedo anything like this in Congress unless Democrats can get 60 non-centrist senators (which is not gonna happen). So you can either get this when Democrats are in the white house, or you can just not get it at all.
[flagged]
Back to the chevron thing though, how many of you have ever gotten a parking ticket? Imagine two years after the fact some bureaucrat sent a letter informing you that because of your previous bad decisions you're unable to drive. Driving is a privilege, and the state will no longer grant that privilege to you.
Is that decision fair? You already went through the court system (or otherwise paid it off (implicitly, often explicitly, pleading guilty)), a judge took the time to judge your misdeeds, and you had some penalty applied, perhaps the max allowed by the law. Now though, some part of the executive branch wants to ignore any judicial action and assert their opinions.
Even before this ludicrous supreme court case, that was a thing that happened. A whole office in Minnesota is dedicated to extra-judicial traffic rulings above and beyond what the judge thought was reasonable.
I think it's wrong. Empower somebody like the FAA to make fast decisions when there are actually lives at stake, but everything else which could reasonably be judged one way or the other should go through somebody capable of judging it (maybe...a judge). Even FAA rulings probably ought to be vetted once they're less time sensitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may not like the executive action rollercoaster, but it’s the one you’re on. Republicans would torpedo anything like this in Congress unless Democrats can get 60 non-centrist senators (which is not gonna happen). So you can either get this when Democrats are in the white house, or you can just not get it at all.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You literally just attacked the regulatory agency for going with "whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best." How about evaluating the agency's argument instead of automatically assuming a political appointee from the most politically divisive administration in an era where precedent is being thrown away at record pace on partisan grounds is "correct on the question of law"? "As far as…
Sorry, I seem to have miscommunicated: I'm not commenting on the rule, I actually quite like it in principle. I'm commenting on the manner in which the rules are created and their fragility. Laws passed by Congress tend to stick around and can be counted on. I want a law banning noncompetes, not a temporary administrative rule that gets added to the pile of things that could get completely upended with each and every…
I'd in general rather have agencies invent rules in ways that help Americans instead of judges inventing interpretations in ways that help corporations.
The courts should have the power to issue injunctions against an agency's policies but the judge shopping should not be allowed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may not like the executive action rollercoaster, but it’s the one you’re on. Republicans would torpedo anything like this in Congress unless Democrats can get 60 non-centrist senators (which is not gonna happen). So you can either get this when Democrats are in the white house, or you can just not get it at all.
[flagged]
[flagged]
You may not like the executive action rollercoaster, but it’s the one you’re on. Republicans would torpedo anything like this in Congress unless Democrats can get 60 non-centrist senators (which is not gonna happen). So you can either get this when Democrats are in the white house, or you can just not get it at all.
The growing administrative state created Congressional deadlock, not the other way around—it changed the game and made the optimal move for either party be to hang everything on the presidency, killing compromise. The only path towards breaking the stalemate in Congress is eliminating the ability of either party to deliver anything through the side channels they found in the executive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may not like the executive action rollercoaster, but it’s the one you’re on. Republicans would torpedo anything like this in Congress unless Democrats can get 60 non-centrist senators (which is not gonna happen). So you can either get this when Democrats are in the white house, or you can just not get it at all.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may not like the executive action rollercoaster, but it’s the one you’re on. Republicans would torpedo anything like this in Congress unless Democrats can get 60 non-centrist senators (which is not gonna happen). So you can either get this when Democrats are in the white house, or you can just not get it at all.
[flagged]
[flagged]