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

91–100 of 128 posts

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#91

Post by markhahn »

twobitshifter wrote: post #53
ncallaway wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything, other than the two caveats below: > Strike pardon power; I'd go slightly narrower. I think pardons and clemency are a good thing to have in the system. I think we can put reasonable guardrails around it - Require pardons to be published to a public register to be effective - Allow a 2/3 vote of both chambers of congress to veto a pardon within 90 days - Disallow pardons in the final year of t…

If we keep pardons, no reason to give that power to the executive branch at all.

There are lots of executive actions which require consent of congress. I think that would work fine here. Obviously, the point is for congress to have a means of overriding a corrupt pardon (not that such a thing would ever happen!)

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#92

Post by cogman10 »

brightball wrote: post #89
cogman10 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an issue. Voter fraud has been prosecuted, measured, and accounted for across the US. It basically never has any sort of impact on any election. There are 10s of instances of it each year. Far too few to swing any election. That said, I'd be willing to accept voter ID with a few caveats 1. A national ID has to be provided to all voters. Charging people to vote shouldn't happen. 2. We need reform to polling locati…

All of those caveats make perfect sense.

Yeah. The main problem I have with voter integrity laws is they all seem to revolve around making voting harder. To me, it seems to be an effort to make it easier to throw away inconvenient votes.

Some laws, in particular signature matching, should be eliminated. With so little hand writing, I'd be shocked if almost anyone has consistent signatures now-a-days. Since there's such variability it makes it a lot easier to discard votes due more to prejudice and less due to an actual problem with someone's signature.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#93

Post by markhahn »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #88
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…

> Five Constitutional amendments we need Let's consider these then. > Strike pardon power What are you going to replace it with? What happens to someone who is convicted in a case where the law is both clear and clearly wrong? The courts can't help them when they actually did it but there are scores of laws that "innocent people" violate without knowing it on a regular basis. You need something else to address that i…

the Executive is required to obtain consent of Congress to appoint principal officers; why not just require consent to fire them?

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#94

Post by ethbr1 »

markhahn wrote: post #91
twobitshifter wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we keep pardons, no reason to give that power to the executive branch at all.

There are lots of executive actions which require consent of congress. I think that would work fine here. Obviously, the point is for congress to have a means of overriding a corrupt pardon (not that such a thing would ever happen!)

The benefit of vesting a power in the executive is unity of purpose (regardless of what administration is in power).

The benefit of Congress is slowing and deliberating over knee-jerk decisions.

Having the President initiate and Congress approve plays to the strengths of both offices.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#95

Post by apparent »

lovich wrote: post #52
ecshafer wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than 4 I disagree whole heartedly. The worst part of the Fed government might be the Federal Reserve (abolish the fed), which would be like your 5. Electoral college is an important step to relegating the power of the masses. Pardon should be clarified in scope but not removed, Bidens indefinite pardons for any possible crimes was absurd.

lol, abolish the fed and only complain about Biden’s pardons. I thought I was the most the openly partisan person on this forum but apparently I have competition.

I believe Biden granted clemency to entire classes of people, which was unprecedented. Previously it was only done by name, and therefore limited to much smaller numbers of people. Trump may have been more egregious in other ways (and he'll likely pardon his family/friends on the way out, to avoid having them be targeted), but Biden was unprecedented in this respect.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#96

Post by apparent »

KaiserPro wrote: post #22
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…

I mean yes, but the bigger issue is that the 14th amendment only survived by one fucking vote. The supreme court is one vote away from not upholding the constitution.

> the 14th amendment only survived by one fucking vote.

Slavery was almost brought back?

Or are you referring to the birthright citizenship case, which involves an ancillary aspect of the 14th amendment?

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#97

Post by AnthonyMouse »

markhahn wrote: post #93
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Five Constitutional amendments we need Let's consider these then. > Strike pardon power What are you going to replace it with? What happens to someone who is convicted in a case where the law is both clear and clearly wrong? The courts can't help them when they actually did it but there are scores of laws that "innocent people" violate without knowing it on a regular basis. You need something else to address that i…

the Executive is required to obtain consent of Congress to appoint principal officers; why not just require consent to fire them?

This is the "make repealing laws as hard as passing them" mistake. You want the process for taking government action to be deliberative because the cost of doing the wrong thing is orders of magnitude worse than the cost of doing nothing.

Using the same process to stop something that has already been set in motion is getting the equation backwards. When there is a steamroller on its way to flatten an elementary school full of children you want the emergency stop button to be accessible rather than bureaucratic.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#98

Post by russdill »

apparent wrote: post #77
russdill wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony here is (3) is by far the closest to actually occurring as in practice, it doesn't require amending the constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... Of course, the SC could easily declare it unconstitutional....interpret any amendments as they see fit anyway. The decision on the 14th very nearly went the other way.

> The decision on the 14th very nearly went the other way. Really? How do you know?

Because I read how each justice voted and several justices are advanced in age.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#99

Post by apparent »

russdill wrote: post #98
apparent wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The decision on the 14th very nearly went the other way. Really? How do you know?

Because I read how each justice voted and several justices are advanced in age.

Counting votes is a rudimentary way to come to the conclusion that it "very nearly went the other way". SCOTUS is much more complex than that, as anyone who follows it knows.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#100

Post by draw_down »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #25

The mental gymnastics that jurists attempt to go through to justify their rulings as "principled" in some sense is just baffling to me. The right railed against "judicial activism" for years, but it is plainly obvious that is what is happening here (overturning precedent after precedent solely based on their current feelings), especially by giving credence to the "unitary executive" theory that obviously makes separa…

[dead]
Post reply on HN