6 ms·

You could say the same sentence but replace 'judicial overreach' with 'legislative incompetence'. I suggest the problem is that the legislature is filled with

You could say the same sentence but replace 'judicial overreach' with 'legislative incompetence'. I suggest the problem is that the legislature is filled with cognitive dissonance on this issue, prepared to say one thing [in law] - for the votes - and do another - for the votes. That requires the judiciary to sort out the mess.

rsj_hn 5y ago
That the legislature is not following your wishes does not mean that they are incompetent. They could be reacting to the wishes of the majority of the population, which simply does not view carbon emissions as being particularly important nor do they believe there is any crisis to address here.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  You make a separate point. My point was that the legislature is writing law which is in conflict with itself. The quote "future generation" hasn't come from the judiciary - it is written into the law, for the judiciary to deal with the consequences.
- ska 5y ago
  Similarly, 'judicial overreach' is (most?) often just used to mean 'I don't like the courts decision'. Especially in a common law country, this terminology is often off target.
- jbay808 5y ago
  Unfortunately, the majority of the population hasn't been born yet.
- glial 5y ago
  > They could be reacting to the wishes of the majority of the population Citation seriously needed.
  - etrabroline 5y ago
    I don't think its reasonable to demand people pepper every comment with citaitons and links for things that can easily be found with a quick internet search.
    - glial 5y ago
      Give me a break, I was giving the parent an opportunity to provide evidence. All evidence I have seen is to the contrary: > In our analysis based on 490 roll calls between 2005 and 2014 in the US House of Representatives, we find strong evidence that representatives are more likely to vote with special interests and against constituency interests when the two are in conflict. Importantly, the latter effect is significantly larger when there is less attention on politics. Speaking of quick Google searches, the quote is from the first result when you search for “Do politicians vote with people's opinion or special interests”. http://ftp.iza.org/dp11945.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp11945.pdf
gwright 5y ago
And why do you have confidence that the judiciary is going to be better able to sort out the mess? I realize that there are grey areas, but the role of the judiciary isn't to be an legislature-of-last-resort. What are you going to do when the judiciary screws things up? Can't vote them out in most cases.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ska 5y ago
  > but the role of the judiciary isn't to be an legislature-of-last-resort. True, but in a common law system part of the role of the judiciary is to decide how the laws are interpreted. Civil system have a parallel set of problems; you can push the complexity around but you can't get rid of it.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    The role of the judiciary is to clarify the grey areas left open for interpretation by the legislature. While none of these countries have passed "F off young people" laws I don't think it's fair to say the majority of these rulings (except the dutch one - that one is legally interesting) are really a reasonable interpretation of laws on the books. That all said, times are desperate so if law makers are going to stick-in-the-mud I'm happy to see them overruled by the will of the people. I feel like we've gone past the point where we can reasonably discuss alternative market based solutions to climate change like carbon credits - and most conservative political blocks are still against even such a soft idea.
    - eulenteufel 5y ago
      At least in the German ruling of the constitutional court they could refere to Article 20a of the German constitution Art20a, Roughly translated: The state, in responsibility for future generations, protects the natural means of subsistence and the Animals in the constitutional order by use of legislative, excecutive and judiciary measures. Of course this doesn't say verbatim to protect the climate but I think this is enough legislative basis to rule dangerous negligence on the matter of climate change unconstitutional.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ALittleLight 5y ago
Legislative incompetence is caused by voter incompetence. Why can't the electorate elect competent legislators?
- pfisch 5y ago
  > Why can't the electorate elect competent legislators? I don't believe this is a realistic goal. It is an idealistic goal, that we should strive for but will never actually happen.
- robocat 5y ago
  > caused by voter incompetence I laugh every time I think to myself that my vote can make a difference. I believe democracy works because we can vote out a government we can see is working against our interest. I don’t think democracy is that important for voting in a party for its policies. I certainly have never experienced that I can vote in a particular policy I believe in. Occasionally I think I can vote against a party that is pushing a policy I don’t like, but often the policy comes to fruition anyway (maybe delayed until the next change of government). And I live in a country with MMP where my vote makes more of a difference than a two party system.
  - salawat 5y ago
    You're playing American Democracy wrong. You work through your Representative. This requires patience, diligence, and a superhuman capacity to sink disappointment. Occasionally though, you will see verbiage from one of your letters end up in a bill. So it does work.
    - anigbrowl 5y ago
      We should probably stop using 18th century political technology to manage 21st century problems. Eventually we'll need to move towards a participative form of democracy, a wikiocracy if you will, in which anyone can be legislator and work on any topic, substantive or trivial, but will need to overcome a certain amount of social inertia and semi-automated procedural brakes. Right now you have an electorate mostly equipped with near-instant communication and responsive to mass information campaigns, governed by a legislature that works at a snail's pace, lacking in adequate transparency, and with no direct linkage between the popular will and the legislative process; effectively a large complex machine which voters are given a limited right to kick every 2-4 years in hopes that this will rearrange the internals enough to make it functional. Individual congresses and executive branch administrations can be good or bad to varying degrees, but the system as a whole is simply not adequate for the governance of the society and economy that has grown up around it.
jimbob45 5y ago
The legislature is made up of hundreds of representatives who answer to the people regularly and reflect their opinion. Their rulings represent (ideally) what the majority of the population wants. A judgeship is made up of one dipshit in robes. He represents his own opinion and may not have ever been elected by the people. If he “legislates” something into law like this, it’s tantamount to indirect despotism.
- GavinMcG 5y ago
  > who answer to the people regularly and reflect their opinion Really? In a huge number of legislative districts in my country, only one party is competitive, and there is little organized intraparty effort to mount a challenge at the primary stage. The judiciary is an antimajoritarian institution. There are times when what the majority wants isn't a good thing, and also times when what it wants isn't implemented by the legislature. Also, plenty of judges aren't dipshits. Plenty of legislators are. Point is: arguing from the first principles of political structure isn't terribly convincing since political reality doesn't actually match those principles.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  A judgeship is made up of one dipshit in robes I bet you're actually a smart person who is quite familiar with the appeals process, precedent, the distinction between common and statute law, and so forth. But for some reason you've chosen to field this sort of well-poisoning argument instead.
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    I would just rather the people be represented than decided for. As such, I don’t like that Roe v. Wade was decided for the US by nine dipshits and I don’t like that nine new dipshits may strike it down in the near future, none of whom were even indirectly elected. Why do you consider my argument well-poisoning?
    - GavinMcG 5y ago
      Not indirectly elected? Many, many U.S. conservatives voted for Republican senatorial and presidential candidates specifically having in mind that they would shape a Supreme Court willing to strike down Roe. Trump promised to only appoint justices who would do so.
TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
That's not what cognitive dissonance means. That's called being a two faced lier. Cognitive dissonance requires psychological stress as a driver of change in attitude. Politicians seem incapable of changing their beliefs, typically because most of them are narcissistic. Narcissism, self absorption general, and a lack of empathy, better explains why ploticians espouse differing beliefs depending on who and when the audience is. Edit: fixed a word
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Or, even simpler, they don't actually believe what they say they believe. They have some beliefs, but it's hard to say what exactly - publicly, they present whatever opinions they need people to see at any given moment.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
    Yes, political theatre.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      A spectacle? (Paging 'dredmorbius; I'm way past my bedtime, and he knows this stuff better anyway.)
      - dredmorbius 5y ago
        The purpose of a performative action is what it does. To paraphrase Stafford Beer.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  It's reasonable to be this cynical about politicians, and I certainly find this to be true in two-party systems. But, it's easily possible for democratic representation to result in a set of contradicting laws without any dishonesty. Suppose laws A, B and C are incompatible, but any pair is reasonable. 35% of representatives fundamentally support A and B [and not C]; 35% support B and C; 30% support A and C. All three such laws will pass with majority support, with everyone holding true to their represented beliefs - but the system is still at fault.

rsj_hn 5y ago

That the legislature is not following your wishes does not mean that they are incompetent. They could be reacting to the wishes of the majority of the population, which simply does not view carbon emissions as being particularly important nor do they believe there is any crisis to address here.

teachingassist 5y ago
You make a separate point. My point was that the legislature is writing law which is in conflict with itself. The quote "future generation" hasn't come from the judiciary - it is written into the law, for the judiciary to deal with the consequences.
ska 5y ago
Similarly, 'judicial overreach' is (most?) often just used to mean 'I don't like the courts decision'. Especially in a common law country, this terminology is often off target.
jbay808 5y ago
Unfortunately, the majority of the population hasn't been born yet.
glial 5y ago
> They could be reacting to the wishes of the majority of the population Citation seriously needed.
- etrabroline 5y ago
  I don't think its reasonable to demand people pepper every comment with citaitons and links for things that can easily be found with a quick internet search.
  - glial 5y ago
    Give me a break, I was giving the parent an opportunity to provide evidence. All evidence I have seen is to the contrary: > In our analysis based on 490 roll calls between 2005 and 2014 in the US House of Representatives, we find strong evidence that representatives are more likely to vote with special interests and against constituency interests when the two are in conflict. Importantly, the latter effect is significantly larger when there is less attention on politics. Speaking of quick Google searches, the quote is from the first result when you search for “Do politicians vote with people's opinion or special interests”. http://ftp.iza.org/dp11945.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp11945.pdf

gwright 5y ago

And why do you have confidence that the judiciary is going to be better able to sort out the mess? I realize that there are grey areas, but the role of the judiciary isn't to be an legislature-of-last-resort. What are you going to do when the judiciary screws things up? Can't vote them out in most cases.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ska 5y ago
> but the role of the judiciary isn't to be an legislature-of-last-resort. True, but in a common law system part of the role of the judiciary is to decide how the laws are interpreted. Civil system have a parallel set of problems; you can push the complexity around but you can't get rid of it.
- munk-a 5y ago
  The role of the judiciary is to clarify the grey areas left open for interpretation by the legislature. While none of these countries have passed "F off young people" laws I don't think it's fair to say the majority of these rulings (except the dutch one - that one is legally interesting) are really a reasonable interpretation of laws on the books. That all said, times are desperate so if law makers are going to stick-in-the-mud I'm happy to see them overruled by the will of the people. I feel like we've gone past the point where we can reasonably discuss alternative market based solutions to climate change like carbon credits - and most conservative political blocks are still against even such a soft idea.
  - eulenteufel 5y ago
    At least in the German ruling of the constitutional court they could refere to Article 20a of the German constitution Art20a, Roughly translated: The state, in responsibility for future generations, protects the natural means of subsistence and the Animals in the constitutional order by use of legislative, excecutive and judiciary measures. Of course this doesn't say verbatim to protect the climate but I think this is enough legislative basis to rule dangerous negligence on the matter of climate change unconstitutional.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ALittleLight 5y ago

Legislative incompetence is caused by voter incompetence. Why can't the electorate elect competent legislators?

pfisch 5y ago
> Why can't the electorate elect competent legislators? I don't believe this is a realistic goal. It is an idealistic goal, that we should strive for but will never actually happen.
robocat 5y ago
> caused by voter incompetence I laugh every time I think to myself that my vote can make a difference. I believe democracy works because we can vote out a government we can see is working against our interest. I don’t think democracy is that important for voting in a party for its policies. I certainly have never experienced that I can vote in a particular policy I believe in. Occasionally I think I can vote against a party that is pushing a policy I don’t like, but often the policy comes to fruition anyway (maybe delayed until the next change of government). And I live in a country with MMP where my vote makes more of a difference than a two party system.
- salawat 5y ago
  You're playing American Democracy wrong. You work through your Representative. This requires patience, diligence, and a superhuman capacity to sink disappointment. Occasionally though, you will see verbiage from one of your letters end up in a bill. So it does work.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    We should probably stop using 18th century political technology to manage 21st century problems. Eventually we'll need to move towards a participative form of democracy, a wikiocracy if you will, in which anyone can be legislator and work on any topic, substantive or trivial, but will need to overcome a certain amount of social inertia and semi-automated procedural brakes. Right now you have an electorate mostly equipped with near-instant communication and responsive to mass information campaigns, governed by a legislature that works at a snail's pace, lacking in adequate transparency, and with no direct linkage between the popular will and the legislative process; effectively a large complex machine which voters are given a limited right to kick every 2-4 years in hopes that this will rearrange the internals enough to make it functional. Individual congresses and executive branch administrations can be good or bad to varying degrees, but the system as a whole is simply not adequate for the governance of the society and economy that has grown up around it.

jimbob45 5y ago

The legislature is made up of hundreds of representatives who answer to the people regularly and reflect their opinion. Their rulings represent (ideally) what the majority of the population wants. A judgeship is made up of one dipshit in robes. He represents his own opinion and may not have ever been elected by the people. If he “legislates” something into law like this, it’s tantamount to indirect despotism.

GavinMcG 5y ago
> who answer to the people regularly and reflect their opinion Really? In a huge number of legislative districts in my country, only one party is competitive, and there is little organized intraparty effort to mount a challenge at the primary stage. The judiciary is an antimajoritarian institution. There are times when what the majority wants isn't a good thing, and also times when what it wants isn't implemented by the legislature. Also, plenty of judges aren't dipshits. Plenty of legislators are. Point is: arguing from the first principles of political structure isn't terribly convincing since political reality doesn't actually match those principles.
anigbrowl 5y ago
A judgeship is made up of one dipshit in robes I bet you're actually a smart person who is quite familiar with the appeals process, precedent, the distinction between common and statute law, and so forth. But for some reason you've chosen to field this sort of well-poisoning argument instead.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  I would just rather the people be represented than decided for. As such, I don’t like that Roe v. Wade was decided for the US by nine dipshits and I don’t like that nine new dipshits may strike it down in the near future, none of whom were even indirectly elected. Why do you consider my argument well-poisoning?
  - GavinMcG 5y ago
    Not indirectly elected? Many, many U.S. conservatives voted for Republican senatorial and presidential candidates specifically having in mind that they would shape a Supreme Court willing to strike down Roe. Trump promised to only appoint justices who would do so.

TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago

That's not what cognitive dissonance means. That's called being a two faced lier. Cognitive dissonance requires psychological stress as a driver of change in attitude. Politicians seem incapable of changing their beliefs, typically because most of them are narcissistic. Narcissism, self absorption general, and a lack of empathy, better explains why ploticians espouse differing beliefs depending on who and when the audience is. Edit: fixed a word

TeMPOraL 5y ago
Or, even simpler, they don't actually believe what they say they believe. They have some beliefs, but it's hard to say what exactly - publicly, they present whatever opinions they need people to see at any given moment.
- TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
  Yes, political theatre.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    A spectacle? (Paging 'dredmorbius; I'm way past my bedtime, and he knows this stuff better anyway.)
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      The purpose of a performative action is what it does. To paraphrase Stafford Beer.
teachingassist 5y ago
It's reasonable to be this cynical about politicians, and I certainly find this to be true in two-party systems. But, it's easily possible for democratic representation to result in a set of contradicting laws without any dishonesty. Suppose laws A, B and C are incompatible, but any pair is reasonable. 35% of representatives fundamentally support A and B [and not C]; 35% support B and C; 30% support A and C. All three such laws will pass with majority support, with everyone holding true to their represented beliefs - but the system is still at fault.