Seems like an odd move to undercut the checks and balances courts are supposed to have over legislation. Enacting a law solely to undercut a court's decision seems spurious, and may blow back on both the legislation and the school.
[deleted]
Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
21–30 of 180 posts
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#22Seems like an odd move to undercut the checks and balances courts are supposed to have over legislation. Enacting a law solely to undercut a court's decision seems spurious, and may blow back on both the legislation and the school.
The exact opposite. The legislature (which passed this unanimously) AND the governor passed this legislation as a check on the power of the court. This happens all the time, e.g. famously when the US passed the 16th amendment to allow income tax.
They're interfering with a private lawsuit, and changing laws with retroactive effect to do so. That's what's so odd about this.
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#23Seems like an odd move to undercut the checks and balances courts are supposed to have over legislation. Enacting a law solely to undercut a court's decision seems spurious, and may blow back on both the legislation and the school.
I've seen this take a lot in the last half a day and it makes no sense at all. The court rules on the law. It's an ordinary statute, and the legislature changed it. There is no checks-and-balances conflict here. The statute says whatever the legislature says it says.
Yeah, from what I understand this is exactly how the separation of judicial and legislative powers is _meant_ to work.
The court's power is to interpret what is written. The legislature's power is to write the words. If the legislature doesn't like how the court interpreted the statute they're meant to rewrite it so that the intention is clearer.
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#24> Assemblyman Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield) noted that environmental standards are not being changed. “We are changing what they apply to,” he said. Either the environmental review standards are good and needed.. or they are not. This is post-hoc ruling and I am curious how the court will react. The only thing the opposition needs to do here is run a few pressers with homeless students.
Sure, but lots of things are unnecessary and we can't get rid of them because they are politically dangerous to touch. So we chip away at the ugliness bit by bit. No purity here: you take every yard you can get. And if I have to lie and say "CEQA as it stands is great, but occasionally there are situations where it is a bad fit" just to get people to let me take a step forward, then I'll lie.
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#25Good. I wish they'd sign more such laws to deal with all the property developments across San Francisco that are stuck in years-long "environmental review" or other similar bureaucratic hurdles put forward by NIMBY groups.
That'll never happen. One of the main reasons SF even has a housing crisis is because they refuse to allow people to build multiple levels upwards bc of zoning.
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#26Seems like an odd move to undercut the checks and balances courts are supposed to have over legislation. Enacting a law solely to undercut a court's decision seems spurious, and may blow back on both the legislation and the school.
Seems like an odd move to undercut the checks and balances courts are supposed to have over legislation. Enacting a law solely to undercut a court's decision seems spurious, and may blow back on both the legislation and the school.
That is literally how the legislature is supposed to act when it feels that the court has erred in interpreting legislation.
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#27A college town that was filled with ordinary college commotion is largely silent day and night. The streets of Berkeley, California near campus are empty for more than a year now. University Avenue, a major road leading to campus is quiet day and night, it used to be filled with cars, music and daily activity. Half of restaurants and most retail have closed in the last two years; parties are hidden due to covid-19. W…
I'm having trouble recalling a Heinlein story with any relevance here
Don't you remember that classic Heinlein story, "This Place I Like Isn't The Same As It Used To Be"?
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
The exact opposite. The legislature (which passed this unanimously) AND the governor passed this legislation as a check on the power of the court. This happens all the time, e.g. famously when the US passed the 16th amendment to allow income tax.
They're interfering with a private lawsuit, and changing laws with retroactive effect to do so. That's what's so odd about this.
No, they're addressing a private lawsuit that was only permitted to proceed because of the court's erroneous (but reasonable) interpretation of the prior law.
So the legislature changed the law to make it explicitly clear that these types of lawsuits were never intended by the law.
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#29A college town that was filled with ordinary college commotion is largely silent day and night. The streets of Berkeley, California near campus are empty for more than a year now. University Avenue, a major road leading to campus is quiet day and night, it used to be filled with cars, music and daily activity. Half of restaurants and most retail have closed in the last two years; parties are hidden due to covid-19. W…
This has been practically every college town since the pandemic started.
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#30Good. I wish they'd sign more such laws to deal with all the property developments across San Francisco that are stuck in years-long "environmental review" or other similar bureaucratic hurdles put forward by NIMBY groups.
That'll never happen. One of the main reasons SF even has a housing crisis is because they refuse to allow people to build multiple levels upwards bc of zoning.
> That'll never happen. One of the main reasons SF even has a housing crisis is because they refuse to allow people to build multiple levels upwards bc of zoning.
Couldn't the Gov. sign another law stopping that as well? Similar to the legislation around single family housing lots?