4 ms·

The supreme court applies the law. I don't understand where this idea has come from that the court ought to be the provider of novel 'fair' legislation (as opp

The supreme court applies the law. I don't understand where this idea has come from that the court ought to be the provider of novel 'fair' legislation (as opposed to the mean legislation proposed by Congress) or the decider of punishments. This law is set by elected members of Congress. It is their duty to provide proper punishments for it or to scrap it altogether. It is up to the president to show mercy when someone faces a trial like this through his power of clemency. Contrary to this article placing the blame solely with the judiciary, a case like this starts with the federal government starting a case. They don't have to. The executive is the real one punishing us expats. Stop making the court out to be some dictator.

aidenn0 4y ago
Indeed, if the recent decisions by the supreme court have taught me anything, it's that Congress has been incredibly ineffective at passing legislation over the past 40 years.
- kurupt213 4y ago
  It took the recent decisions? Congress has almost completely abdicated its responsibility for decades
- someguydave 4y ago
  One reason for this is because the Supreme Court has deferred to allowing a great deal of legislating in the Executive. Congress passes "blank check" laws that require unelected career bureaucrats to make law ("regulation") with minimal oversight. If the Supreme Court slowly disallows this, then Congress will eventually be forced to vote on controversial issues again.
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    I don't think there's anything in the constitution that prevents Congress from delegating their power. I don't think the authors anticipated that elected officials would want to give away their power.
    - someguydave 4y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine
throw_m239339 4y ago
> I don't understand where this idea has come from that the court ought to be the provider of novel 'fair' legislation (as opposed to the mean legislation proposed by Congress) or the decider of punishments. Cause the legislative branch in US is in shambles, "can't" get anything done, at least that's the perception, as the country is divided to a point that both camps consider the other "the enemy", so everybody now relies on either the judiciary or the executive branch to makes laws. This is essentially a constitutional and political crisis, that has been going for the last 20 years in USA.
- patrick451 4y ago
  Gridlock in Washington is a feature, not a bug. The more gridlock, the fewer laws get passed. Unfortunately, there never seems to be much gridlock around spending money.
- anon291 4y ago
  Completele agree.
lumost 4y ago
So if we have two broken branches of government, break the third? In practice the relative power and authority of different branches of government changes over time. The US constitution is now the oldest still operable founding document, and was constructed at a time when the king held extensive influence over British governance. If we say that no branch of government is allowed to be rational, then we’ll need a constitutional convention sooner rather than later.
- someguydave 4y ago
  >"If we say that no branch of government is allowed to be rational" "rational" in this case meaning "unilaterally countermand the decisions of the other branches"
- patmorgan23 4y ago
  The constitution is not the founding document of the United States, that would be the articles of confederation. But the US constitution is one of the oldest operating constitutions In the world. Most either get rewritten after 50-100 years or get overturned in a revolution.
  - anon291 4y ago
    No, the declaration of independence is the founding document of the United States, since before that no United States existed by anyone's reckoning, and after, someone certainly thought so. The articles were written way after, and formed the second federal government of the United States. The first was the continental congress.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Applying the rules created by the other two branches is the Supreme Court’s mandate. What you’re advocating is breaking the third branch of government on the theory that the other two branches are broken and need to be worked around. A “results” oriented society is a regression from a “rules” oriented society. We have that in Bangladesh—courts that do what they think is “right” instead of following the rules. It’s better than courts where judges take bribes or act in their personal self interest, but not as good as courts that rationally apply the rules. It doesn’t promote respect for the rule of law because people disagree on what’s just and right. But mostly they can agree on the rules and reconcile themselves to the results if they feel the rules were followed. What a shamefully misleading article title! I’m shocked to see so many well educated Americans, who should know better, embrace such thinking. What I admire most about Americans is that they’ll jump off a bridge if a court tells them to and the paperwork is in order. That’s how you build a marvelous civilization.

aidenn0 4y ago

Indeed, if the recent decisions by the supreme court have taught me anything, it's that Congress has been incredibly ineffective at passing legislation over the past 40 years.

kurupt213 4y ago
It took the recent decisions? Congress has almost completely abdicated its responsibility for decades
someguydave 4y ago
One reason for this is because the Supreme Court has deferred to allowing a great deal of legislating in the Executive. Congress passes "blank check" laws that require unelected career bureaucrats to make law ("regulation") with minimal oversight. If the Supreme Court slowly disallows this, then Congress will eventually be forced to vote on controversial issues again.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  I don't think there's anything in the constitution that prevents Congress from delegating their power. I don't think the authors anticipated that elected officials would want to give away their power.
  - someguydave 4y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine

throw_m239339 4y ago

> I don't understand where this idea has come from that the court ought to be the provider of novel 'fair' legislation (as opposed to the mean legislation proposed by Congress) or the decider of punishments. Cause the legislative branch in US is in shambles, "can't" get anything done, at least that's the perception, as the country is divided to a point that both camps consider the other "the enemy", so everybody now relies on either the judiciary or the executive branch to makes laws. This is essentially a constitutional and political crisis, that has been going for the last 20 years in USA.

patrick451 4y ago
Gridlock in Washington is a feature, not a bug. The more gridlock, the fewer laws get passed. Unfortunately, there never seems to be much gridlock around spending money.
anon291 4y ago
Completele agree.

lumost 4y ago

So if we have two broken branches of government, break the third? In practice the relative power and authority of different branches of government changes over time. The US constitution is now the oldest still operable founding document, and was constructed at a time when the king held extensive influence over British governance. If we say that no branch of government is allowed to be rational, then we’ll need a constitutional convention sooner rather than later.

someguydave 4y ago
>"If we say that no branch of government is allowed to be rational" "rational" in this case meaning "unilaterally countermand the decisions of the other branches"
patmorgan23 4y ago
The constitution is not the founding document of the United States, that would be the articles of confederation. But the US constitution is one of the oldest operating constitutions In the world. Most either get rewritten after 50-100 years or get overturned in a revolution.
- anon291 4y ago
  No, the declaration of independence is the founding document of the United States, since before that no United States existed by anyone's reckoning, and after, someone certainly thought so. The articles were written way after, and formed the second federal government of the United States. The first was the continental congress.
rayiner 4y ago
Applying the rules created by the other two branches is the Supreme Court’s mandate. What you’re advocating is breaking the third branch of government on the theory that the other two branches are broken and need to be worked around. A “results” oriented society is a regression from a “rules” oriented society. We have that in Bangladesh—courts that do what they think is “right” instead of following the rules. It’s better than courts where judges take bribes or act in their personal self interest, but not as good as courts that rationally apply the rules. It doesn’t promote respect for the rule of law because people disagree on what’s just and right. But mostly they can agree on the rules and reconcile themselves to the results if they feel the rules were followed. What a shamefully misleading article title! I’m shocked to see so many well educated Americans, who should know better, embrace such thinking. What I admire most about Americans is that they’ll jump off a bridge if a court tells them to and the paperwork is in order. That’s how you build a marvelous civilization.