4 ms·

Would a republican-heavy Supreme Court agree?

by nikanj 7y ago

SamReidHughes 7y ago
If the ruling voting to overturn on these grounds were 6-3 I'd guess it was 4 repubs, plus Soto and RGB. If it were 8-1 I'd guess it was 4 repubs + 4 dems, with Thomas dissenting. Edit: Well, nah, it'd be some breakdown with concurrences in part.
- rudiv 7y ago
  Haha, RGB. 'The Notorious RGB' sounds like something people in the printing industry say.
- henriquez 7y ago
  RGB: the Corsair gaming justice!
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  I put a hex on you Notorious Ruth Ginsburg Bader!
wyxuan 7y ago
idk. It might be less about republican policy and more about republican ideals (less government action) that gets this overturned. I would at the very least expect Roberts to maybe jump the aisle.
henriquez 7y ago
Allowing the Office of the Attorney General wide discretion to regulate speech seems like it wouldn’t square up with “smaller government” ideals favored by a Republican Supreme Court, especially when the AG could be a Democrat in less than a year.
- nindalf 7y ago
  I think "small government" principles can be set aside when it's expedient to do so. See how small government advocates at the Federal level try their best to override state laws on marijuana legalisation - such businesses still have difficulties getting a bank account. Reagan, the arch-priest of the small government cult did it too. He bullied states into changing the minimum drinking age by withholding Federal funding.
  - throwaway0a5e 7y ago
    I think you're confusing people who want small government with Republicans in general and people who just care about low taxes (or intentionally building a straw-man but I'll give you benefit of the doubt). Small government advocates do not remember Reagan fondly because of his drug policy and how he screwed the second amendment. Small government advocates haven't been a fan of federal drug policy for a very long time. I remember seeing bumper stickers with quips like "I dream of a world where men can smoke pot with their husbands" in the early 1990s.
    - non-entity 7y ago
      > I think you're confusing people who want small government with Republicans in general and people who just care about low taxes (or intentionally building a straw-man but I'll give you benefit of the doubt). That would be in-part because those two groups you mention like to advertise themselves are proponents of small government, when most often they are not. Hell I'd even wager many libertarians are less small-government than they claim and I've even heard many of them complain about too many Republican-lite types associating themselves.
    - Infinitesimus 7y ago
      Thanks for clarifying. I think your parent's point was that if you vote for a party because of perceived small government ideals, you would watch those ideals vanish when the party as a whole wants to impose certain ideals on the smaller governments. Ultimately if you delegate power and decision making enough, a few people with the consolidated power call the shots no matter how many smaller governments/powers exist. OP cited Regan as an example of that
- mywittyname 7y ago
  Small Government is a euphemism for a system that looks the other way while Powerful People rob us blind, either through poorly thought out government contracts, or lax enforcement of laws protecting the financial interest of the public. People rarely use the Small Government argument to combat items like excessive military expenses. It's always to do with taxes, privatizing (profitable) government functions, or criticizing consumer protection laws.
  - david_w 7y ago
    I respect that you believe that and you can meaningfully connect the rhetoric of small government to specious criticism of consumer protections laws. Just realize that to a significant part of the thinking public, it's NOT about that. It's about the government controlling everything from the size of your soda to your toilet seat size to the way your kids are educated to how you get your healthcare. A significant part of the public does NOT believe if it's a good idea, and there are bad consequences to someone not following the good idea, it therefore ought to be a law. It's not cynical on their part at all. Just trying to share with you the perspective of these people.
    - mywittyname 7y ago
      >It's about the government controlling everything from the size of your soda to your toilet seat size to the way your kids are educated to how you get your healthcare. I see these things as falling under "consumer protection laws." There are lots of areas where the free market creates perverse incentives and society has created regulations in order to address these issues. We have food regulations because companies used to lie about the food they were selling, we have building codes because companies were constructing unsafe buildings, we have education regulation because schools were failing to provide a base-line education, and we are pushing for healthcare regulations because the private sector has fucked healthcare industry so badly that most of us feel that we should nuke it from orbit. You might not agree with my take, but I assure you that we are talking about the same thing. You may not think the public agrees with these things, but regulations like this didn't appear out of thin air and private companies certainly didn't put them in place. What happened was the public got tired of dealing with these problems and elected politicians who did something about it.

Would a republican-heavy Supreme Court agree?

by nikanj 7y ago

Would a republican-heavy Supreme Court agree?

If the ruling voting to overturn on these grounds were 6-3 I'd guess it was 4 repubs, plus Soto and RGB. If it were 8-1 I'd guess it was 4 repubs + 4 dems, with Thomas dissenting. Edit: Well, nah, it'd be some breakdown with concurrences in part.

rudiv 7y ago
Haha, RGB. 'The Notorious RGB' sounds like something people in the printing industry say.
henriquez 7y ago
RGB: the Corsair gaming justice!
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
I put a hex on you Notorious Ruth Ginsburg Bader!

wyxuan 7y ago

idk. It might be less about republican policy and more about republican ideals (less government action) that gets this overturned. I would at the very least expect Roberts to maybe jump the aisle.

henriquez 7y ago

Allowing the Office of the Attorney General wide discretion to regulate speech seems like it wouldn’t square up with “smaller government” ideals favored by a Republican Supreme Court, especially when the AG could be a Democrat in less than a year.

nindalf 7y ago
I think "small government" principles can be set aside when it's expedient to do so. See how small government advocates at the Federal level try their best to override state laws on marijuana legalisation - such businesses still have difficulties getting a bank account. Reagan, the arch-priest of the small government cult did it too. He bullied states into changing the minimum drinking age by withholding Federal funding.
- throwaway0a5e 7y ago
  I think you're confusing people who want small government with Republicans in general and people who just care about low taxes (or intentionally building a straw-man but I'll give you benefit of the doubt). Small government advocates do not remember Reagan fondly because of his drug policy and how he screwed the second amendment. Small government advocates haven't been a fan of federal drug policy for a very long time. I remember seeing bumper stickers with quips like "I dream of a world where men can smoke pot with their husbands" in the early 1990s.
  - non-entity 7y ago
    > I think you're confusing people who want small government with Republicans in general and people who just care about low taxes (or intentionally building a straw-man but I'll give you benefit of the doubt). That would be in-part because those two groups you mention like to advertise themselves are proponents of small government, when most often they are not. Hell I'd even wager many libertarians are less small-government than they claim and I've even heard many of them complain about too many Republican-lite types associating themselves.
  - Infinitesimus 7y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. I think your parent's point was that if you vote for a party because of perceived small government ideals, you would watch those ideals vanish when the party as a whole wants to impose certain ideals on the smaller governments. Ultimately if you delegate power and decision making enough, a few people with the consolidated power call the shots no matter how many smaller governments/powers exist. OP cited Regan as an example of that
mywittyname 7y ago
Small Government is a euphemism for a system that looks the other way while Powerful People rob us blind, either through poorly thought out government contracts, or lax enforcement of laws protecting the financial interest of the public. People rarely use the Small Government argument to combat items like excessive military expenses. It's always to do with taxes, privatizing (profitable) government functions, or criticizing consumer protection laws.
- david_w 7y ago
  I respect that you believe that and you can meaningfully connect the rhetoric of small government to specious criticism of consumer protections laws. Just realize that to a significant part of the thinking public, it's NOT about that. It's about the government controlling everything from the size of your soda to your toilet seat size to the way your kids are educated to how you get your healthcare. A significant part of the public does NOT believe if it's a good idea, and there are bad consequences to someone not following the good idea, it therefore ought to be a law. It's not cynical on their part at all. Just trying to share with you the perspective of these people.
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    >It's about the government controlling everything from the size of your soda to your toilet seat size to the way your kids are educated to how you get your healthcare. I see these things as falling under "consumer protection laws." There are lots of areas where the free market creates perverse incentives and society has created regulations in order to address these issues. We have food regulations because companies used to lie about the food they were selling, we have building codes because companies were constructing unsafe buildings, we have education regulation because schools were failing to provide a base-line education, and we are pushing for healthcare regulations because the private sector has fucked healthcare industry so badly that most of us feel that we should nuke it from orbit. You might not agree with my take, but I assure you that we are talking about the same thing. You may not think the public agrees with these things, but regulations like this didn't appear out of thin air and private companies certainly didn't put them in place. What happened was the public got tired of dealing with these problems and elected politicians who did something about it.