41 ms·

Representatives do not vote for supreme court justices. Congress has the power to enact laws. If they give authority to some agency, that agency now has that a

by juve1996 4y ago

Representatives do not vote for supreme court justices. Congress has the power to enact laws. If they give authority to some agency, that agency now has that authority. Congress gave certain authority to the EPA and more through the Clean Air Act. Congress can, after the fact, revoke, or add, or change authority, at any time, if there is enough support. There isn't enough support - because many people in this country have elected representatives that don't support that initiative. It's quite clear that the powers granted by the people (e.g. congress and the presidency, directly elected by the people, unlike the court) to the EPA through law (and the clean air act), enumerate these powers. These very laws can be repealed by further legislative action. This isn't a case of constitutionality and thus the court oversteps its power. Let the people repeal the laws if they think they're too bureaucratic.

xg15 4y ago
I think this whole debate is missing the elephant in the room a bit, which is the partisan battle and stalemated congress. In a functioning democracy, would have found some compromise and enacted laws a long time ago - and no questionable procedural hacks would have been necessary.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  With agencies allowed to create law, it allowed congress to be exist in this dysfunctional state. Now, if anyone wants anything done at all, they’ll have to work together. Despite being irritatingly disproportionately older than the populous they represent, they’ve been allowed to act like children. I see this as a win.
  - xg15 4y ago
    Why would they want to work together? Republicans have reached a particular outcome that is favourable to them with this verdict. Why would they be interested in passing any law that would bring back exactly the environmental protections they wanted to avoid in the first place?
SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
> Representatives do not vote for supreme court justices. Friend, what do you think senate confirmation is? Do you not think that is a vote? >If they give authority to some agency, that agency now has that authority. Congress gave certain authority to the EPA and more through the Clean Air Act. Well, nitpicks aside, yes. The problem is the EPA, CDC, ATF, DEA, FBI, and others have gone outside their given authority and created new “laws” (not laws) and this is what the court ruled on today.
- henearkr 4y ago
  Some senate has voted for them in the past, then the senate changes, the justices do not (except if they die or resign), and then the situation is that the current senate, or any subsequent future senate ever, will not have voted for them, they are absolutely out of any representativity of the will of the population.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    As pedantic as possible. The SC justices are voted in by Senate representatives.
    - henearkr 4y ago
      My point is that the permanence of the vote removes all the benefit of the concept of "election". They are voted in but then they never change. That's how you elect a tyrant. Even laws are not voted like that: you can amend or cancel a law, but not a justice.
      - Nevermark 4y ago
        Justices can be impeached. The court could be packed. Ultimately even the Supreme Court can be corrected by Congress. But when power is consolidated in both Congress and the Supreme Court, that fix no longer exists in any practical way. The core problem, as with any problem of rule by a minority or individual, are weaknesses in a system that allow power to be consolidated at the top. The US system has neither legal nor practical/cultural limits on party control. Temporary one-party rule (limited only by the courts) is often achieved by parties controlling both the Presidency and Congress. Add courts opportunistically designed to reinforce that one party rule, and temporary control can be carefully orchestrated in the direction of long term one party rule. -- If the Constitution dictated party seat limits (to 25% of Congress, for example), then cross-partisanship cooperation, instead of all-or-nothing competition, would become a virtual necessity. Multiple parties would be required to achieve anything, or block anything. And multiple parties have much less incentive, and more to fear, from allowing subversion of electoral systems. The wonders of decentralized power. -- Unfortunately, peaceful decentralization of an already highly centralized system, is an extremely difficult problem. Party limits are unlikely to be adopted by either party. Even a seemingly losing party will have difficulty attempting to promote such a thing. (And violent reformations, in addition to mass casualties of the innocent, rarely produce anything like the intended results.) The US has entered a new era of its political history.

xg15 4y ago

I think this whole debate is missing the elephant in the room a bit, which is the partisan battle and stalemated congress. In a functioning democracy, would have found some compromise and enacted laws a long time ago - and no questionable procedural hacks would have been necessary.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
With agencies allowed to create law, it allowed congress to be exist in this dysfunctional state. Now, if anyone wants anything done at all, they’ll have to work together. Despite being irritatingly disproportionately older than the populous they represent, they’ve been allowed to act like children. I see this as a win.
- xg15 4y ago
  Why would they want to work together? Republicans have reached a particular outcome that is favourable to them with this verdict. Why would they be interested in passing any law that would bring back exactly the environmental protections they wanted to avoid in the first place?

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

> Representatives do not vote for supreme court justices. Friend, what do you think senate confirmation is? Do you not think that is a vote? >If they give authority to some agency, that agency now has that authority. Congress gave certain authority to the EPA and more through the Clean Air Act. Well, nitpicks aside, yes. The problem is the EPA, CDC, ATF, DEA, FBI, and others have gone outside their given authority and created new “laws” (not laws) and this is what the court ruled on today.

henearkr 4y ago
Some senate has voted for them in the past, then the senate changes, the justices do not (except if they die or resign), and then the situation is that the current senate, or any subsequent future senate ever, will not have voted for them, they are absolutely out of any representativity of the will of the population.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  As pedantic as possible. The SC justices are voted in by Senate representatives.
  - henearkr 4y ago
    My point is that the permanence of the vote removes all the benefit of the concept of "election". They are voted in but then they never change. That's how you elect a tyrant. Even laws are not voted like that: you can amend or cancel a law, but not a justice.
    - Nevermark 4y ago
      Justices can be impeached. The court could be packed. Ultimately even the Supreme Court can be corrected by Congress. But when power is consolidated in both Congress and the Supreme Court, that fix no longer exists in any practical way. The core problem, as with any problem of rule by a minority or individual, are weaknesses in a system that allow power to be consolidated at the top. The US system has neither legal nor practical/cultural limits on party control. Temporary one-party rule (limited only by the courts) is often achieved by parties controlling both the Presidency and Congress. Add courts opportunistically designed to reinforce that one party rule, and temporary control can be carefully orchestrated in the direction of long term one party rule. -- If the Constitution dictated party seat limits (to 25% of Congress, for example), then cross-partisanship cooperation, instead of all-or-nothing competition, would become a virtual necessity. Multiple parties would be required to achieve anything, or block anything. And multiple parties have much less incentive, and more to fear, from allowing subversion of electoral systems. The wonders of decentralized power. -- Unfortunately, peaceful decentralization of an already highly centralized system, is an extremely difficult problem. Party limits are unlikely to be adopted by either party. Even a seemingly losing party will have difficulty attempting to promote such a thing. (And violent reformations, in addition to mass casualties of the innocent, rarely produce anything like the intended results.) The US has entered a new era of its political history.