6 ms·

Not surprised. Republicans advocate for judicial restraint only as long as it suits them.

by doe88 8y ago

stephengillie 8y ago
It's impossible to have a moderate discussion when extremists keep shouting at each other.
briandear 8y ago
And Democrats argue states’ rights when it suits them.
- reitanqild 8y ago
  Upvoted you both. I think this should be the key takeaway: it shouldn't be us vs them. Decent people exist on both sides, but they don't seem to run the show on either side :-/
- maym86 8y ago
  The net neutrality debate is about the repeal of fedral rules rather than adding an additional law. Thus a state's right to set their own rules applies. There is no fedral law to make ISPs behave in a certain way, just the lack of one, so the states should be able to set their own rules in cases like this as long as they are not unconstitutional. States' rights do not apply in the opposite case when a fedral rule is made and the states don't want to enforce it or have a law that contradicts it. Their laws can't undermine the fedral law. Hope that's helpful for your understanding of why this is different to the normal "states' rights" argument which is invoked when a state wants to avoid fedral rules.
- pm90 8y ago
  Democrats use state rights to protect scientifically and economically sound policies when there is an obvious bad faith actions on the part of the Federal Government.
  - jedberg 8y ago
    That’s a bad argument to make, only because conservatives believe that their state’s rights issues also stem from scientifically and economically sound policy.
    - pm90 8y ago
      No they don't. Their arguments are based around different interpretations of the constitution and protection of various ill-defined "freedoms" (freedom from religious persecution, freedom of choice etc.) They happily do not include science in their political calculus.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    and slavery in the 1850s I mean if reacting against the Federal Government not upholding contractual obligations is your argument then the democratic party has been consistent! (look, don't get defensive to protect the base, I've got zero chips in the game, just come up with a better argument)
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > And Democrats argue states’ rights when it suits them. No, they don't, and the ones that were once prone to had all become Republicans in the realignment beginning in 1964 that was largely complete by the 1990s. Democrats might argue Constitutional limits on the power of the federal government, but “state’s rights” has been attached to a very specific ideology since before the Civil War.
- Waterluvian 8y ago
  It feels like there's this blanket belief that both parties are, by nature of the cosmos, equally as wrong when you add it all up.
dang 8y ago
Please keep partisan flamewar off HN. It will burn everything else up if allowed to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- doe88 8y ago
  Sorry, I didn't know it was controversial, I thought it was a fact. I listen to a lot of podcasts about the supreme court from the Constitution Center (very very good btw) and some of the judicial philosophies very often advanced by conservatives are originalism and judicial restraint. I don't have any eggs in this game, so I maybe should have added : politics on both sides are primarly shape shifters and adapt their positions to their relative powers and current objectives. I only think that at one point both sides should take their responsabilities and own their previous positions, accountability is the only way to move forward imo.

Not surprised. Republicans advocate for judicial restraint only as long as it suits them.

by doe88 8y ago

Not surprised. Republicans advocate for judicial restraint only as long as it suits them.

stephengillie 8y ago

It's impossible to have a moderate discussion when extremists keep shouting at each other.

briandear 8y ago

And Democrats argue states’ rights when it suits them.

reitanqild 8y ago
Upvoted you both. I think this should be the key takeaway: it shouldn't be us vs them. Decent people exist on both sides, but they don't seem to run the show on either side :-/
maym86 8y ago
The net neutrality debate is about the repeal of fedral rules rather than adding an additional law. Thus a state's right to set their own rules applies. There is no fedral law to make ISPs behave in a certain way, just the lack of one, so the states should be able to set their own rules in cases like this as long as they are not unconstitutional. States' rights do not apply in the opposite case when a fedral rule is made and the states don't want to enforce it or have a law that contradicts it. Their laws can't undermine the fedral law. Hope that's helpful for your understanding of why this is different to the normal "states' rights" argument which is invoked when a state wants to avoid fedral rules.
pm90 8y ago
Democrats use state rights to protect scientifically and economically sound policies when there is an obvious bad faith actions on the part of the Federal Government.
- jedberg 8y ago
  That’s a bad argument to make, only because conservatives believe that their state’s rights issues also stem from scientifically and economically sound policy.
  - pm90 8y ago
    No they don't. Their arguments are based around different interpretations of the constitution and protection of various ill-defined "freedoms" (freedom from religious persecution, freedom of choice etc.) They happily do not include science in their political calculus.
- gammateam 8y ago
  and slavery in the 1850s I mean if reacting against the Federal Government not upholding contractual obligations is your argument then the democratic party has been consistent! (look, don't get defensive to protect the base, I've got zero chips in the game, just come up with a better argument)
dragonwriter 8y ago
> And Democrats argue states’ rights when it suits them. No, they don't, and the ones that were once prone to had all become Republicans in the realignment beginning in 1964 that was largely complete by the 1990s. Democrats might argue Constitutional limits on the power of the federal government, but “state’s rights” has been attached to a very specific ideology since before the Civil War.
Waterluvian 8y ago
It feels like there's this blanket belief that both parties are, by nature of the cosmos, equally as wrong when you add it all up.

dang 8y ago

Please keep partisan flamewar off HN. It will burn everything else up if allowed to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

doe88 8y ago
Sorry, I didn't know it was controversial, I thought it was a fact. I listen to a lot of podcasts about the supreme court from the Constitution Center (very very good btw) and some of the judicial philosophies very often advanced by conservatives are originalism and judicial restraint. I don't have any eggs in this game, so I maybe should have added : politics on both sides are primarly shape shifters and adapt their positions to their relative powers and current objectives. I only think that at one point both sides should take their responsabilities and own their previous positions, accountability is the only way to move forward imo.