4 ms·

> The reform passed 3:2 along partisan lines, with the appointed Democrat commissioners voting in favor, and Republicans against. While there has been far too

by revscat 11y ago

> The reform passed 3:2 along partisan lines, with the appointed Democrat commissioners voting in favor, and Republicans against. While there has been far too much cross-party desire to be "tough on crime", this is yet another example where the GOP seems to be stuck in the past, unwilling to recognize the failure and brutality of that stance. And while this is absolutely a positive step, meaningful reforms will not transpire to any significant degree so long as state governments are dominated by conservatives. They may occasionally voice social justice concerns, but want to comes time to vote on those issues the result is what you see here, almost without exception.

ars 11y ago
It's not that. They felt they did not have the legal authority to do this, and that it would be struck down by the courts.
- smt88 11y ago
  What would be the harm in doing it and then seeing if the courts struck it down? That's done in politics all the time. Their explanation was just a smokescreen. It's politically dangerous as a Republican to look like you have compassion for convicted criminals.
  - ars 11y ago
    > What would be the harm in doing it and then seeing if the courts struck it down? That's a pretty terrible way to run a government. When you elect someone you expect them to follow the law and do their job. Not just do anything they want and say "it's fine, if we are wrong the court will fix it".
    - smt88 11y ago
      > That's a pretty terrible way to run a government. When you elect someone you expect them to follow the law and do their job. Whether or not it's terrible, it's the system of checks and balances that was envisioned by the founders of the United States. It's exactly how our government has (and does) run for its entire history. The courts exist for this purpose. "Follow the law" is not cut-and-dried. Statutes can be interpreted any number of ways, and very little common law is set in stone. Even common law created by the Supreme Court (e.g. Roe v Wade) it incredibly controversial and could be challenged again.
      - ars 11y ago
        And? You advocate for every government official to power grab as much as they can and let the courts sort it out? The courts are there in case of mistakes, they are not intended as the primary way for government to function. Do you realize just what you are advocating for? Every little police chief will claim any road he can, until a court tells him to stop. Every property inspector will levy fines for parking tickets until told he can't. Nothing stops me from setting up a toll booth at the end of the road, until the court tells me to stop. No, this is not the way. People should, on their OWN, know what they should and should not do. The Republicans felt this was a power grab by the FCC, you would have been happy if in fact they had grabbed that power, but that's because you like the issue at hand. Next time it will be for something you don't like.
        enraged_camel 11y ago
        Courts sorting it out is not without consequence. It greatly harms the credibility of both the organization whose decision is struck down, and the people who voted for that decision. So when an organization says, "we will make the decision and let the courts sort it out", they aren't doing it as a power grab, but rather because they are genuinely unsure if it is a legal decision. So in this case, the Democratic FCC members were willing to take a risk because they thought the potential benefit (giving prisoners affordable access to telephones) is worth it. The Republicans did not, because they are, in this scenario, comfortable with the status quo.
      - cortesoft 11y ago
        The courts exist for this purpose, but they aren't supposed to have to make a ruling for EVERY law. It would be very wasteful if lawmakers did not think at ALL about whether their laws would pass court scrutiny. Some laws are so obviously unconstitutional that they should not even be attempted; that will just waste taxpayer dollars. Of course, lots of things are in a grey area... that is where it makes sense to try to pass a law and see if the courts agree. But for most of the time, lawmakers should try to only pass laws that are clearly legal.
- jbooth 11y ago
  Oh, come on. Anytime a politician of any party uses that line it's a load of crap. If they supported the policy they'd find the legal authority perfectly acceptable.

by revscat 11y ago

ars 11y ago

It's not that. They felt they did not have the legal authority to do this, and that it would be struck down by the courts.

smt88 11y ago
What would be the harm in doing it and then seeing if the courts struck it down? That's done in politics all the time. Their explanation was just a smokescreen. It's politically dangerous as a Republican to look like you have compassion for convicted criminals.
- ars 11y ago
  > What would be the harm in doing it and then seeing if the courts struck it down? That's a pretty terrible way to run a government. When you elect someone you expect them to follow the law and do their job. Not just do anything they want and say "it's fine, if we are wrong the court will fix it".
  - smt88 11y ago
    > That's a pretty terrible way to run a government. When you elect someone you expect them to follow the law and do their job. Whether or not it's terrible, it's the system of checks and balances that was envisioned by the founders of the United States. It's exactly how our government has (and does) run for its entire history. The courts exist for this purpose. "Follow the law" is not cut-and-dried. Statutes can be interpreted any number of ways, and very little common law is set in stone. Even common law created by the Supreme Court (e.g. Roe v Wade) it incredibly controversial and could be challenged again.
    - ars 11y ago
      And? You advocate for every government official to power grab as much as they can and let the courts sort it out? The courts are there in case of mistakes, they are not intended as the primary way for government to function. Do you realize just what you are advocating for? Every little police chief will claim any road he can, until a court tells him to stop. Every property inspector will levy fines for parking tickets until told he can't. Nothing stops me from setting up a toll booth at the end of the road, until the court tells me to stop. No, this is not the way. People should, on their OWN, know what they should and should not do. The Republicans felt this was a power grab by the FCC, you would have been happy if in fact they had grabbed that power, but that's because you like the issue at hand. Next time it will be for something you don't like.
      - enraged_camel 11y ago
        Courts sorting it out is not without consequence. It greatly harms the credibility of both the organization whose decision is struck down, and the people who voted for that decision. So when an organization says, "we will make the decision and let the courts sort it out", they aren't doing it as a power grab, but rather because they are genuinely unsure if it is a legal decision. So in this case, the Democratic FCC members were willing to take a risk because they thought the potential benefit (giving prisoners affordable access to telephones) is worth it. The Republicans did not, because they are, in this scenario, comfortable with the status quo.
    - cortesoft 11y ago
      The courts exist for this purpose, but they aren't supposed to have to make a ruling for EVERY law. It would be very wasteful if lawmakers did not think at ALL about whether their laws would pass court scrutiny. Some laws are so obviously unconstitutional that they should not even be attempted; that will just waste taxpayer dollars. Of course, lots of things are in a grey area... that is where it makes sense to try to pass a law and see if the courts agree. But for most of the time, lawmakers should try to only pass laws that are clearly legal.
jbooth 11y ago
Oh, come on. Anytime a politician of any party uses that line it's a load of crap. If they supported the policy they'd find the legal authority perfectly acceptable.