341–350 of 402 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, but then the answer is to fix Congress, not to bypass it.
And what if it is fundamentally unfixable? Do we just allow everything to grind to a halt and pretend that everything is working as designed as the country crumbles beneath us? I guess that's easier to do when it's the working class and not most HN-type folks who would get hit the hardest by that plan. Congress has been delegating rule-making authority to the executive branch since before all of us were born. You may…
Then, once the cause is understood, the next step would be to figure out an appropriate system that would work, or at least work better, and amend the Constitution to reflect that new system.
The alternative is to just let things continue as they are going, and I don't like that choice. It results in the president becoming more of a ruler and less of an executive. I expect less freedom down that road (and eventually none), and I don't like it.
My take on the questions I posed is this: Yes, it did work, at least adequately, and now it doesn't. What changed? I suspect that it was Roe v Wade. Since then, the right has been trying to get control of the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, and the left has been trying to block them. So both are fighting over control of the nomination process, which means the presidency and the Senate. I suspect that that's the cause of the trench warfare in Congress.
If I'm right, then it is in fact ultimately unfixable. Neither side is going to compromise, ever. You can't even fix it by amending the Constitution, because then there's going to be a battle about undoing the amendment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the link! I'm referring to the Federal government. I will amend down to 85%! I think 2020 is more representative: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=W03&cyc... I'd say the Federal civil service starts at Health and Human Services and below.
> I think 2020 is more representative The historical chart on my first link shows that 2020 is wildly nonrepresentative. Unless you think that Trump vs. the present Democratic party is somehow a new stable political alignment. > I'd say the Federal civil service starts at Health and Human Services and below. It does not. Department of State and USPS are largely federal civil service, whereas Los Angeles County and th…
State and the USPS are a little different - State looks outwards, unlike the rest of the agencies, and the USPS is quasi civil service and a bit of a political football. Not only that, but it has a strong local presence across the country.
The rest of the agencies are, unfortunately, politicized and biased.
Edit: Not all the charts in your link show cumulative data.
But, look at the chart for "Party Split, 1990-2022" in the election years - that's when the civil service donates heavily to get "their party" into power: 2012: Dem 69% 2016: Dem 77% 2020: Dem 76%
That chart includes both "Public Officials" and "Civil Servants". The former group is far more balanced, since the Republican/Democratic split is pretty even. If there was a similar chart for just the Civil Servants, it would be a lot more biased.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Suppose an anti-abortion president gets elected and he elects someone as head and tells them that health care providers that accept medicare or medicaid cannot provide abortions Not comparable. Based on current law, abortion is a Constitutionally-protected right. Based on precedent from the Spanish-flu era, the government has broad public health powers. All that said, as someone who isn’t a fan of how much power Co…
You should probably read the Jacobson decision more carefully [1], since you believe that it grants the government the right to mandate vaccines. The decision is much more narrow that you've been led to believe. It specifically addresses state police powers, not federal powers. It also doesn't mandate vaccination, it allows a small fine to be paid instead. Also, according to a well known attorney I consulted (who has…
Specifically avoided saying that. Stated simply, my point is there is positive precedent to the precursors to vaccine mandates, and reasonable ambiguity to the question per se. There is clear negative precedent for abortion. As such, comparing them is misleading. (Better analogy may be found in gun rights.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What has this got to do with anything? Beating a straw man "the virus will wait for legislation" while implying all the "debate and discuss" isn't important. Also, the virus does care about the things you mention, insofar as they affect infection vectors i.e. If you don't have the power to avoid situations that put you at risk.
I was making a point. It was flagged for some reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what was the point?
The point is it won't acknowledge legislation. It can't be stopped with pen strokes. You will never be able to bargain with it. You can't even communicate with it.
If you mean the virus is literally not stopped by legislation, nor is it literally sentient; who made such a claim? How is the insentient nature of the virus anything but an irrelevant tangent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just establishing that you don't have a philosophical problem with an Authority using coercion to achieve a goal. Vaccines are safe and effective so I wont get into what conspiracy theories you believe about the COVID-19 vaccine. Most importantly, vaccines have been mandated by the government in different settings for years. I'm sure if you went to college at a public school, you had to certain vaccines. I know…
In general I will rebel against any authority that claims to know what is better for me than I do. Nobody is my master. That is what our Constitution protects. My individual right to do whatever the hell I want to as long as it doesn't inhibit other people from doing the same. That doesn't mean I would not comply just for the sake of it. If something is requested of me I will weigh the risks and benefits for myself a…
Who the fuck's been saying either of those things? None of the mainstream sources I've seen, certainly. Usually, for the efficacy angle, they're emphasizing that it's not 100% effective, and that's part of why it's important that more people get vaccinated and that vaccinated people continue to take precautions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Garbage ruling from the least democratic branch of government in the US. Is... that meant to be a bad thing? Yes, judicial branch should not be directly accountable to voters. In fact, as a Canadian, I find the idea of electing judges to be so thoroughly strange that it almost defies belief. Why the hell would you want your judicial branch to be "democratic", as in directly and immediately beholden to the whims of t…
Is having judges be only accountable to politicians and unclear financial interests pulling the strings be that much better?
But yes, if you have garbage politicians they will at some point start appointing garbage judges, garbage crown attorneys, etc. and the system breaks down. So, like, get better politicians (by which I really mean become better voters).