311–320 of 1001 posts
Seems like they are really working towards democracy. Making them actually make the laws.
Much of this is a result of the court's rulings (very directly in the case of Bush!), entrenching gerrymandering and making it harder and harder to remove the massively corrupting bribery for access that fuels the political system.
Deferring administrative decisions to congress is not a recipe for more democracy, but for more gridlock, and it hands a historically and internationally extremist faction the political victories they want anyway. It will generate Republican outcomes even from Democratic Party executives and congresses (like the current one).
That's not democracy.
I have to say that, as an anti-authoritarian, conservative advocate of individual liberty, this last week has been extremely inspiring.
To those who are confused about how the system in the US works: the court has basically decreased their own power with some of these decisions. That’s the type of thing that should give everybody, regardless of affiliation, hope about the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of federal law isn't mentioned in the constitution. Come on now.
Stop being obtuse. The majority of federal law exists only because broad interpretations of the few subjects the feds were granted the ability to regulate. If abortion was intertwined with interstate commerce or national defense it would be regulated. Of course there's BS that's just as detached as abortion that gets regulated federally but if those subjects were big ideological issues and got the same scrutiny they…
PDF of the ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf As usual, it’s more nuanced than the headline.
I truly wish more people were legally literate, and considering how much intellectual overlap there is between software engineering and legal writing I would have expected better from the HN crowd, but so far all I see is a lot of talking point parroting about partisanship from those who clearly haven't even tried to read the rulings.
Emphasis mine: > The case against the EPA was brought by West Virginia on behalf of 18 other mostly Republican-led states and some of the nation's largest coal companies. > > They were challenging whether the agency has the power to regulate planet-warming emissions for state-wide power sectors or just individual power plants. > > These 19 states were worried their power sectors would be regulated and they would be f…
If something like that can't make it through congress then it isn't democratic, and the task then becomes one of convincing the other side. I've the had the anti-coal conversation with plenty of conservatives and they were all open to my point of view.
Ultimately this court's decision is a win for democracy, even if it is a (temporary) step back for fighting climate change.
I 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…
You have to know the actual motivation: The point is to limit the administrative state and move power to congress (as you said), because federal rule making is relatively open, and the administration has experts. If it moves to congress, they'll just take the legislation lobbyists hand them and pass it, because they don't have the expertise to actually write technical regulations. This is a win for industry.
PDF of the ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf As usual, it’s more nuanced than the headline.
The reason people are mad is because the court is relitigating long settled cases which breaks the main principle of the court which is don’t break userspace without damn good reason. We know they think the decisions were made incorrectly but the bar of “this is crucially important we fix” I don’t think it is being met. Instead it’s at best tone deaf to the real life effects of their decisions and more likely motivated to achieve specific partisan legislative outcomes.
So to recap: the SCOTUS has ruled that the agency established and authorized by Congress to regulate environmental protection does not have the authority to regulate environmental protection. Did I get that right?
> The majority says it is simply “not plausible” that Congress enabled EPA to regulate power plants’ emissions through generation shift- ing. Ante, at 31. But that is just what Congress did when it broadly authorized EPA in Section 111 to select the “best system of emission reduction” for power plants. §7411(a)(1). The “best system” full stop—no ifs, ands, or buts of any kind relevant here.
They were given broad power by congress explicitly. If congress had wanted them to reign in that power or not choose the best system, then they could pull it back at any time. They did not. The court decided that the previous congress was full of idiots and could not fathom future technologies for emission reduction and therefore is moot.