Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 128 posts

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#61

Post by the_sleaze_ »

apparent wrote: post #19

Here's a reliable alternate source. [1] I try to avoid single-sourcing on important news, since most outlets have a bias one way or the other. 1: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-allows-trump-to-fir... EDIT: adding that it's sad that people downvote an alternate source that is from an expert outlet. I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim SCOTUSblog is biased, and NPR has surely been credibly accused.

It's difficult to find anything except wildly biased news sources. After reading the article I know I should be upset about what the supreme court has done, and I should be fearful about what could possibly happen tomorrow because of it.

But I don't have a very clear picture about what actually happened.

How could one possibly build their own opinion one way or another from this piece?

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#62

Post by deaux »

lovich wrote: post #47
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We haven’t tried in a generation. I could see pardon power and independent agencies getting through recent Congresses. (Between Biden and Trump, the former has been thoroughly abused. And the Congress likes creating independent agencies.)

Independent agencies are not getting through recent Congresses unless the Republicans party has a total collapse and the Dems simultaneously find their balls again and stop being allergic to the use of power. The removal of Humphrey’s executor was a goal of Project 2025, they are elated at this ruling. > One example includes potentially seeking the overruling of Humphrey's Exec- utor v. United States. 62 This case ap…

> the Dems simultaneously find their balls again and stop being allergic to the use of power.

If only the problem was that they don't have balls. Everything they've done, and not done, is intentional. Hence why most of them see the DSA as a bigger threat than the Reps, and the former is what's awakening some of them rather than 8 years of MAGA.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#63

Post by oldsklgdfth »

apparent wrote: post #19

Here's a reliable alternate source. [1] I try to avoid single-sourcing on important news, since most outlets have a bias one way or the other. 1: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-allows-trump-to-fir... EDIT: adding that it's sad that people downvote an alternate source that is from an expert outlet. I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim SCOTUSblog is biased, and NPR has surely been credibly accused.

I watched the live chat to get the news about these opinions.

Good on the reporters that cover the opinions and post updates. Without much editorialization I may add.

As an aside, I find it very exciting that audio of oral arguments are broadcast and opinions are read without cameras in the room It's a retro feeling.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#64

Post by brainwad »

brightball wrote: post #57
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Five Constitutional amendments we need: 1. Strike pardon power; 2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”; 3. Abolish the electoral college; 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and 5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be in…

You can’t abolish the electoral college without standardized voting across all states. A single state or even county allowing frivolous or unverified voting can swing the entire election. The EC provides a failsafe by capping the max impact of a single state in the event of an anomaly. In other words, you can’t talk about abolishing the EC without a national voter ID law.

This is not a problem in other western countries, so why would it be in the US? It sounds very much like post-hoc justification to me.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#65

Post by throwaway85825 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #59
brightball wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t abolish the electoral college without standardized voting across all states. A single state or even county allowing frivolous or unverified voting can swing the entire election. The EC provides a failsafe by capping the max impact of a single state in the event of an anomaly. In other words, you can’t talk about abolishing the EC without a national voter ID law.

> you can’t talk about abolishing the EC without a national voter ID law. Sure we can. We can even do it right here. I'd never let someone tell me what I can and cannot talk about.

Technically yes you can, but most everyone else will do a bit more scrutiny than you.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#66

Post by throwaway85825 »

nickff wrote: post #58
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, this is debated. ( Moore .) It could be written as an excise tax, too, push come to shove.

Capital gains are permissible because of the 16th amendment; the 16A does not permit the congress to tax assets. It seems like quite a stretch to apply Moore to cash holdings.

We already have taxes on assets. They're called property taxes.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#67

Post by striking »

brainwad wrote: post #64
brightball wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t abolish the electoral college without standardized voting across all states. A single state or even county allowing frivolous or unverified voting can swing the entire election. The EC provides a failsafe by capping the max impact of a single state in the event of an anomaly. In other words, you can’t talk about abolishing the EC without a national voter ID law.

This is not a problem in other western countries, so why would it be in the US? It sounds very much like post-hoc justification to me.

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

Once you see it as a throughline of your conversations with people who have been steeped in the American culture for so long, it is hard to unsee.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#68

Post by nickff »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #66
nickff wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capital gains are permissible because of the 16th amendment; the 16A does not permit the congress to tax assets. It seems like quite a stretch to apply Moore to cash holdings.

We already have taxes on assets. They're called property taxes.

Congress is not permitted to levy property taxes.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#69

Post by ahartmetz »

ceejayoz wrote: post #14
ahartmetz wrote: post #4

It is funny that these things are done by """conservatives""". To be conservative means to conserve things, keep them as they are, and to develop them further guided by traditional values. These """conservatives""" are not conserving anything, they are destroying old institutions with the motivation to build an autocracy.

"Reactionary" is the term you're looking for.

Probably.

The linked article calls them conservatives, which seems like something they'd like to call themselves as well.

Post reply on HN