Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's too complicated for most people. Although it does pain me to see people using their energy so ineffectively. Protester: "6 unelected officials can't decide what I can do!" Supreme Court: "That's literally what we just said!" If Congress punts issues around indefinitely for its own political wheeling and dealing, it still cannot outsource a decision on those issues to other branches of the federal government. W…
> Protester: "6 unelected officials can't decide what I can do!" > Supreme Court: "That's literally what we just said!" Bullshit. The court was perfectly happy telling millions of people they had no right to an abortion. They’re just a bunch of partisan hacks
Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
251–260 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#252Everyone stating this is a good thing because it's not the Supreme Court's job to do xyz are conveniently ignoring the fact these decisions are being made due to tribalism, not out of some concern for rule of law.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to caution other people who are feeling despondent and thinking of leaving that this is exactly what they want. They want you to give them your homes, your relationships, your friends, your resources, your job and everything you've cared about. So instead of being cynical and celebrating people who are abandoning ship, which I totally understand, we should instead spend time uniting people in opposition. Sta…
I concur, as an expat. Barring extreme circumstances‡, one should not moving from the country of one’s birth, but to the country of one’s choice. I emigrated from the U.S. two decades ago to Canada, because of the person who later became my wife—but I had to decide that I could live with Canada, too. Family aside, nothing in the U.S. either held me to America or was pushing me from America. The process took almost tw…
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, but that would require Congress to actually do something, which hasn't happened in the last 18 months so we shouldn't expect it to start. Congress could have mooted this case with ordinary statutory procedures at any point, but did not.
I think a good thing that laws can't pass without sufficient consensus. If you can bypass consensus for the greater good then so can the other side.
So when you're talking about consensus, the country has it. There's consensus on immigration, gun control, and abortion. It's just that Republicans prevent us from acting on it.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#255It's time to de-sanctify the Supreme Court. I really don't like having this unelected councils of wizards who get wield god-like "authority"-- it feels a bit gross in a democracy. I 'get it' w/ respect BrownvBoard, Miranda, etc, but at least in my lifetime the court hasn't done much to expand or protect my rights. Greatest hits from them are weird election cases (Florida 2000) making it easier for really shadowy/fuck…
>>I really don't like having this unelected councils of wizards who get wield god-like "authority" but you are OK with the 'unelected council of wizards' at the EPA wielding their god-like authority instead?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Pr...
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to caution other people who are feeling despondent and thinking of leaving that this is exactly what they want. They want you to give them your homes, your relationships, your friends, your resources, your job and everything you've cared about. So instead of being cynical and celebrating people who are abandoning ship, which I totally understand, we should instead spend time uniting people in opposition. Sta…
I've been pondering this myself. At a certain point, in places going downhill, like Venezuela or Russia, the smart move is just to get out. Tough to decide when that moment is, though, I guess.
This is also a popular trope in fiction. In the recent Handmaid's Tale series, there are several episodes devoted to life immediately before the fall, and what you see is a lot of evidence stuff is going to hit a crisis point, and a lot of people insisting that it hasn't quite yet.
Obviously the threshold to act has to be fairly high -- and I'm not saying America is Kabul or Kyiv or Gilead -- but I think there's nothing wrong with listening to the part of your brain that says "wow, it feels like the shit is imminently going to hit the fan". Because if you wait until it actually does, you'll have significantly less capacity to act.
There are also options beyond leaving the country. Some places are physically safer and physically more isolated from threat than others. For example, in the event that there is a rapid institutional collapse in the United States, it seems likely that Hawai'i would be among the places most likely to endure a little while extra or to most easily facilitate leaving the country. Areas near unguarded border crossings on the northern border also have an appeal in that regard. I think the right degree of seriousness with which to take something like this is not so much "I should move to Hawai'i tomorrow in case there's a civil war" and more "If I can work remotely in Hawai'i or if a job opens up, I might gain some degree of personal safety/sovereignty by moving there."
Personal context: I am a non-American. I spent most of the 2010s living in the U.S., and I emigrated to another country in early 2021. The pull factor to emigrate was a job opportunity abroad that was great and that my wife agreed would be a fun way to spend a few years, but the push factor to emigrate was significant uncertainty about the institutional stability of the U.S. We were setting up our paperwork just as the Capitol Insurrection happened.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the US Congress passed an amendment that stated abortion is legal nationwide, then the Supreme Court would not be able to strike it down as that would be the new federal law.
So you want for women to have their basic rights for us to go through a constitutional amendment path? Interesting. This feels like fascism through paperwork.
Fascism by the way would be rule by fiat - eg a King or a Dictator can just declare new law: "I declare all Hamburgers shall now be served with bacon and anyone who fails to do shall be executed".
Writing down laws and having a neutral body interpret them is a really important part of fair forms of Government (but not unique to Democracy). There is no defense to a fiat in a Dictatorship but that is a defense in eg Democracy. The publishing, disseminating and authority of rules is the basis of a fair form of government.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#258It's time to de-sanctify the Supreme Court. I really don't like having this unelected councils of wizards who get wield god-like "authority"-- it feels a bit gross in a democracy. I 'get it' w/ respect BrownvBoard, Miranda, etc, but at least in my lifetime the court hasn't done much to expand or protect my rights. Greatest hits from them are weird election cases (Florida 2000) making it easier for really shadowy/fuck…
>>I really don't like having this unelected councils of wizards who get wield god-like "authority" but you are OK with the 'unelected council of wizards' at the EPA wielding their god-like authority instead?
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#259I really don't understand the decision. In my mental model the executive branch exists to implement the laws that Congress passes, Congress deliberately leaves leeway in laws to give the executive branch flexibility, this flexibility has been previously affirmed by the court decision Chevron v. NRDC. This decision seems to give more power to Congress but on net I think it makes the laws Congress passes weaker because…
Congress won't act, the Executive isn't permitted to do much even with what they were given by Congress, and the People are powerless to do anything unless 100% of them vote, which never happens, and even then may be overruled in many places. No future for any of us I guess.
I'm not following this logic? Why do we need 100% of people to vote?
I assume you mean to "oust ineffective elected officials" but I suspect that there are many people that don't vote because they are "happy" and don't feel at risk of their desired official being outed. But again, I might be off base. Hoping you can clarify more of what you meant.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Over 60% of the US population think abortion should be legal. More than half of US states are (or are very likely) to institute abortion bans. To the broader point, there has to be _representative_ democracy for decentralized decision making to be fair - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2021/nov/...
There’s a million nuances in it, rape, incest, medical reasons, and the time of abortion.
The abortion debate doesn’t exist in Europe because almost all sides managed to agree on a 12 week limit and it’s left alone.
I would guess in 10-20 years the US would arrive at the same conclusion, with small differences between red and blue states.
Stop making this a yes or no issue. And that’s not what the Supreme Court did. They didn’t ban abortion. If 60% want abortion legal they can vote for whoever gives them that.