3 ms·

> The point is to limit the administrative state and move power to congress (as you said), because federal rule making is relatively open, and the administratio

> The point is to limit the administrative state and move power to congress (as you said), because federal rule making is relatively open, and the administration has experts. > If it moves to congress, they'll just take the legislation lobbyists hand them and pass it, because they don't have the expertise to actually write technical regulations. Huh? Remember Ajit Pai? It hasn't been that long. It's profoundly anti-democratic for major decisions to be made by unelected, unaccountable technocrats (with a comment period) than by actual elected representatives who can at least theoretically be held accountable through elections. IMHO, the solution to this is probably just to pass a law that authorizes this regulation that simultaneously pays off the states who object so they feel it's an overall good deal for them (e.g. fund a nuclear plant and a bunch of new infrastructure for each of them).

xxpor 4y ago
Ajit Pai got kicked out when the administration changed! Exactly how it should be! They're not unaccountable, the president can dismiss them. Just like Trump fired Janet Yellen, and SCOTUS already ruled the structure of CFPB where removal for cause was required is unconstitutional. The idea congress is "democratic" is a huge joke. There's a reason why the House of Lords has essentially no power any more. Let alone the literal open corruption campaign finance is.
- neosystem 4y ago
  Everything you say may or may not be true, but it doesn’t address the point of the ruling or what's under debate. If you don’t believe that the Congress is representative of the will of the people, your issues are not with this or that law or SCOTUS ruling, but with the fundamental structures of the American republic.
Sporktacular 4y ago
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > Would you really like to live in a world where every judge, inspector and policeman is a politician too? Subject to the whims of popular sentiment? A lot of these positions are elected in various US jurisdictions. * https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_election_methods_by_state https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_election_methods_by_state * https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_the_states https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_the_states
  - Sporktacular 4y ago
    Exactly. And look how well that's turned out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poL7l-Uk3I8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poL7l-Uk3I8
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Biden is elected. He appoints experts. Experts craft regulations. When regulations screw up, Biden gets elected out. Experts get kicked out. So just elect a king, then? There's a pretty strict division of powers in the US, and for good reason. Congress just needs to do its job and pass some legislation. > Jesus, can you put aside the taking points and just think for yourself? Obviously no one is unaccountable. This is not some tin pot dictatorship like Fox is telling you to pretend it is. I can tell you I am thinking for myself, at least as much as you probably are. Making an accusation like you have is also, frankly, against the site guidelines and not conductive to discussion.
  - Sporktacular 4y ago
    Congress is not going to do it's job in this political climate and we don't have the luxury of new found proceduralism when so much is at stake. "Just elect a king then?" No, because that would be creating unaccountability where I just demonstrated it already exists. How is putting everyone's future in the hands of Joe Minchin and Mitch McConnell an improvement on that? And again with the hyperbole. Instead of kings, let's stay in reality - the accountability issue you speak of is a red herring. Environment degradation presents an existential danger. Current legal and regulatory procedures are already slow in addressing it but they could have worked (for everyone except polluting industries and their shills). Scientist agree that faster action is required. Legislative obstructionism and a new appetite for legal originalism are just more obstacles that we can't afford. All these points can be defended. You're just repeating ungrounded, abstract, Fox News, boogie man talking points without demonstrating any of them. I apologise if I caused offense, but saying that's thoughtless is not an accusation.

xxpor 4y ago

Ajit Pai got kicked out when the administration changed! Exactly how it should be! They're not unaccountable, the president can dismiss them. Just like Trump fired Janet Yellen, and SCOTUS already ruled the structure of CFPB where removal for cause was required is unconstitutional. The idea congress is "democratic" is a huge joke. There's a reason why the House of Lords has essentially no power any more. Let alone the literal open corruption campaign finance is.

neosystem 4y ago
Everything you say may or may not be true, but it doesn’t address the point of the ruling or what's under debate. If you don’t believe that the Congress is representative of the will of the people, your issues are not with this or that law or SCOTUS ruling, but with the fundamental structures of the American republic.

Sporktacular 4y ago

throw0101a 4y ago
> Would you really like to live in a world where every judge, inspector and policeman is a politician too? Subject to the whims of popular sentiment? A lot of these positions are elected in various US jurisdictions. * https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_election_methods_by_state https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_election_methods_by_state * https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_the_states https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_the_states
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  Exactly. And look how well that's turned out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poL7l-Uk3I8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poL7l-Uk3I8
tablespoon 4y ago
> Biden is elected. He appoints experts. Experts craft regulations. When regulations screw up, Biden gets elected out. Experts get kicked out. So just elect a king, then? There's a pretty strict division of powers in the US, and for good reason. Congress just needs to do its job and pass some legislation. > Jesus, can you put aside the taking points and just think for yourself? Obviously no one is unaccountable. This is not some tin pot dictatorship like Fox is telling you to pretend it is. I can tell you I am thinking for myself, at least as much as you probably are. Making an accusation like you have is also, frankly, against the site guidelines and not conductive to discussion.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  Congress is not going to do it's job in this political climate and we don't have the luxury of new found proceduralism when so much is at stake. "Just elect a king then?" No, because that would be creating unaccountability where I just demonstrated it already exists. How is putting everyone's future in the hands of Joe Minchin and Mitch McConnell an improvement on that? And again with the hyperbole. Instead of kings, let's stay in reality - the accountability issue you speak of is a red herring. Environment degradation presents an existential danger. Current legal and regulatory procedures are already slow in addressing it but they could have worked (for everyone except polluting industries and their shills). Scientist agree that faster action is required. Legislative obstructionism and a new appetite for legal originalism are just more obstacles that we can't afford. All these points can be defended. You're just repeating ungrounded, abstract, Fox News, boogie man talking points without demonstrating any of them. I apologise if I caused offense, but saying that's thoughtless is not an accusation.