Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#101

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 8:59 PM UTC

ethbr1 wrote: post #94

markhahn wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Which wastes everyone’s time. If a case merits pardon, amend the law that convicted them in the first place.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#102

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:01 PM UTC

lovich wrote: post #84

deaux wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

While I am also struggling with the dems reaction to the DSA I do still think the allergy to power is a problem. I have caused some flame wars and/or been removed from dem leaning groups by asking if a candidate or the person speaking would be willing to use 100% of the power lent to them by my vote to enact their policy goals. I didn’t even expect it to be inflammatory, but apparently being frank about power being p…

> would be willing to use 100% of the power lent to them by my vote to enact their policy goals

This probably branded you as an extremist. Those aren’t usually useful to a non-extremist political movement. If you made it clear you were open to compromise and weren’t looking to burn the system down to make a point, you might gain better reception.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#103

Post by atmavatar » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:07 PM UTC

apparent wrote: post #13

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…

No chance 3 ever passes, and a wealth tax would require an amendment unless it is "apportioned among the states" or some such thing (and it can't be because wealthy people are concentrated in a handful of states). Editing to add: It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities. They would completely ignore rural areas, which are financially and culturally diffe…

> It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities.

As opposed to campaigning exclusively in the half-dozen swing states that matter?

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#104

Post by lovich » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:33 PM UTC

apparent wrote: post #95

lovich wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I forgot about the precedent of pardoning a group of people who tried to overthrow an election to keep you in power.

Luckily Trump is only a “may” for being more egregious.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#105

Post by lovich » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:37 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #102

lovich wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I am also struggling with the dems reaction to the DSA I do still think the allergy to power is a problem. I have caused some flame wars and/or been removed from dem leaning groups by asking if a candidate or the person speaking would be willing to use 100% of the power lent to them by my vote to enact their policy goals. I didn’t even expect it to be inflammatory, but apparently being frank about power being p…

> would be willing to use 100% of the power lent to them by my vote to enact their policy goals This probably branded you as an extremist. Those aren’t usually useful to a non-extremist political movement. If you made it clear you were open to compromise and weren’t looking to burn the system down to make a point, you might gain better reception.

Eh, while you’re right on the 100% quote after I got that reaction I toned it down to versions of “using any of your political power to enact your policy goals” and “do _anything_ to hold people accountable for their crimes” and got similar levels of vitriol.

The only people I see advocating for doing anything are unfortunately extremists or insane currently, but people want some action and I think the Democrats inability to articulate what they would do and own it publicly is part of why they are so unpopular even amongst their own base.

And I literally mean the advertising and owning of actions, Biden did a fuck ton(wanted him to do more, him and Obama both failed with their Attorney General picks imo), but when it came to speaking in public the Dems were always demure.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#106

Post by ncallaway » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 10:51 PM UTC

pasc1878 wrote: post #46

ncallaway wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, I think a better option would be to make fines proportional to income, and then give a flat hourly rate that you can earn for fines from community service as an option

No that does not fix the issue. If you have capital rather than income then this is still better for you. e.g. a retiree has capital but not income and for someone like Musk will have plenty of capital but proportionally much ledd income as that will be the best way to avoid tax.

Sure, tying it to net worth instead of income is fine too.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#107

Post by the_sleaze_ » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 11:05 PM UTC

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…

Please don't forget the gifts and donations the judges receive because "Until recently, the judiciary’s ethics guidance didn’t explicitly address the ownership issue."

> If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#108

Post by the_sleaze_ » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 11:08 PM UTC

oldsklgdfth wrote: post #82

the_sleaze_ wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

IANAL, but pretty curious of SCOTUS. I just read a lot of the opinions. (I hate that the pdf does not have a table of contents). I've used the mental model of math and theorems to reason about it. In this model, all laws have to be consistent with base axioms from the constitution (and common law maybe?) I have come to realize that it is not a great analogy. The model breaks down when you realize that the law is not…

> Judicial review is not granted in the constitution.

Pretty fascinating. I didn't know this.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#109

Post by knappe » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 11:18 PM UTC

delecti wrote: post #80

knappe wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- if budget isn't balanced all members of congress become ineligible for election Ask Colorado how TABOR[0] is going. The answer is a 1.5 BILLION[1] deficit because TABOR restricts how money is collected and spent by the state. A balanced budget isn't actually all it is cracked up to be. The deficit spending at the federal level we have now is bonkers, but a balanced budget every year is just unrealistic. Learn from…

> What I'd like to see is Congress be entirely unable to draw a paycheck while the government is shutdown Rich congresspeople already don't need their paycheck. I want more people in congress who need their paycheck, not more who don't.

Yep, so do I. But there has to be at least some consequences for their actions. This seems like the bare minimum and a good place to start.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#110

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 11:20 PM UTC

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…

> What happens to someone who is convicted in a case where the law is both clear and clearly wrong?

Same thing that happens most of the time now. They serve their sentence unjustly. If it’s a serious issue, the Congress can act.

> You need something else

You don’t. Most societies don’t. Pardon power is an anachronism nobody would argue for if it weren’t already here.

> sounds like the abolition of prosecutorial discretion sounds like the abolition of prosecutorial discretion

What? No. This is a unitary-executive thing. Prosecutorial discretion is unrelated.

> second is that you're passing the political speech version of the interstate commerce clause

Lots of thought has gone into this. One can write it competently. At the very least, the First Amendment would still stand.

> executive is currently the only elected official with authority over executive agencies. Suppose the head of one of these independent agencies goes rogue

They’re not! SCOTUS just confirmed this for the Fed. We have a mishmash of authorities, with the Congress clearly wanting some agencies to retain some independence. Most statute creating independent agencies contemplates how members may be fired. If the Congress wants to create a judicial-type independent agency, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be able to properly—the executive already magics these up with administrative courts.