5 ms·

LOL, Roberts takes a shot at Kavanaugh on page 26: > JUSTICE KAVANAUGH’s solo concurrence in part and dissent in part says the quiet part aloud: California’s m

LOL, Roberts takes a shot at Kavanaugh on page 26: > JUSTICE KAVANAUGH’s solo concurrence in part and dissent in part says the quiet part aloud: California’s market is so lucrative that almost any in-state measure will influence how out-of-state profit-maximizing firms choose to operate. ... But if that makes all the difference, it means voters in States with smaller markets are constitutionally entitled to greater authority to regulate in- state sales than voters in States with larger markets. So much for the Constitution’s “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the States.”

solarmist 3y ago
Lol, yup. Equal sovereignty does not mean equal influence.
- ChainOfFools 3y ago
  /glances in the direction of the US Senate
  - solarmist 3y ago
    Isn’t that a direct acknowledgment that they are different?
    - ChainOfFools 3y ago
      No, unless you're reading my comment as some sort of conservative dog whistle. The US Senate structure is a direct contradiction to GP's observation, it's the case where does not is weakened to should not.
      - User23 3y ago
        The Senate is working exactly as intended. Some people might disagree with that intent, but until the constitution is amended or replaced it's very much a case of "should."
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        Note that the Constitution explicitly prohibits amendments from changing the feature of the Senate in question. (Though two hacks that I am aware of have been proposed for end-running that: the first I call the “who watches the watchmen” hack – the Constitution does not explicitly protect the rules on what Amendments can do the way it protects equal representation in the Senate, so one Amendment would change the rules on Amendments to remove the prohibition against removing equal protection in the Senate, and then the second would restructure the Senate; the second I call the “ceremonial Senate” hack – the Constitution protects equal representation in the Senate from Amendment, but it doesn’t protect any of the Senate’s functions, so you can just strip all the functions of the Senate by Amendment [if you still want a functionally bicameral legislature, you can create a third house of Congress and assign whatever Senate functions you want to retain and not transfer to the House of Reps to third house].)
        valianteffort 3y ago
        The whole point of the senate was to give states equal power and entice them to federate under a single government. The point of the bicameral legislative branch was that more direct representation necessitated someone living close enough to their constituents, and legislating on their behalf. The house, serves it's purpose of representing the people's voice, based on population. The senate, represents the state's government on the federal playing field. People either snoozed through their US government courses or fundamentally misunderstood the role of the senate when they bring up nonsense about it being unfair. It is perfectly fair, just not in the direction they want.
        User23 3y ago
        I don't think it's even that. Many US residents today, in particular those with policy making power, consider the constitutional political system to be nothing more than another lever of power. For those who hold that ethos the constitution is like a grab bag. The contents that further their objectives are good and are to be used as well as possible. The contents that hinder their objectives are bad and are to be undermined and ignored to the extent possible. The equal representation of the states in the Senate is merely understood, much like the Electoral College, as a bad check on the policy objectives of those in power. That their childish rhetoric works on those with no understanding of US Civics certainly doesn't hurt though.
Pet_Ant 3y ago
I don't follow the final lines: > But if that makes all the difference, it means voters in States with smaller markets are constitutionally entitled to greater authority to regulate in- state sales than voters in States with larger markets. So much for the Constitution’s “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the States.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hgsgm 3y ago
  CA doesn't owe anything if a business likes CA more than WY.
- insonable 3y ago
  gorsuch is complaining that if california restricts its in-state sales based on xyz, then firms everywhere will optimize in ways influenced by requirements xyz. with california being quite a lucrative market, its requirements will thus have influence over producers everywhere if they intend to sell to california. presumably if it were a more inconsequential state setting some requirements, then gorsuch wouldn't have so much of a problem and might go along. roberts points out that this is against the spirit of states having equal sovereignty. in other words, you can't let wyoming set requirements abc because who cares about that market, and then turn around and tell california "you're too big to set requirements xyz" and have that seen as fair.

solarmist 3y ago

Lol, yup. Equal sovereignty does not mean equal influence.

ChainOfFools 3y ago
/glances in the direction of the US Senate
- solarmist 3y ago
  Isn’t that a direct acknowledgment that they are different?
  - ChainOfFools 3y ago
    No, unless you're reading my comment as some sort of conservative dog whistle. The US Senate structure is a direct contradiction to GP's observation, it's the case where does not is weakened to should not.
    - User23 3y ago
      The Senate is working exactly as intended. Some people might disagree with that intent, but until the constitution is amended or replaced it's very much a case of "should."
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        Note that the Constitution explicitly prohibits amendments from changing the feature of the Senate in question. (Though two hacks that I am aware of have been proposed for end-running that: the first I call the “who watches the watchmen” hack – the Constitution does not explicitly protect the rules on what Amendments can do the way it protects equal representation in the Senate, so one Amendment would change the rules on Amendments to remove the prohibition against removing equal protection in the Senate, and then the second would restructure the Senate; the second I call the “ceremonial Senate” hack – the Constitution protects equal representation in the Senate from Amendment, but it doesn’t protect any of the Senate’s functions, so you can just strip all the functions of the Senate by Amendment [if you still want a functionally bicameral legislature, you can create a third house of Congress and assign whatever Senate functions you want to retain and not transfer to the House of Reps to third house].)
        valianteffort 3y ago
        The whole point of the senate was to give states equal power and entice them to federate under a single government. The point of the bicameral legislative branch was that more direct representation necessitated someone living close enough to their constituents, and legislating on their behalf. The house, serves it's purpose of representing the people's voice, based on population. The senate, represents the state's government on the federal playing field. People either snoozed through their US government courses or fundamentally misunderstood the role of the senate when they bring up nonsense about it being unfair. It is perfectly fair, just not in the direction they want.
        User23 3y ago
        I don't think it's even that. Many US residents today, in particular those with policy making power, consider the constitutional political system to be nothing more than another lever of power. For those who hold that ethos the constitution is like a grab bag. The contents that further their objectives are good and are to be used as well as possible. The contents that hinder their objectives are bad and are to be undermined and ignored to the extent possible. The equal representation of the states in the Senate is merely understood, much like the Electoral College, as a bad check on the policy objectives of those in power. That their childish rhetoric works on those with no understanding of US Civics certainly doesn't hurt though.

Pet_Ant 3y ago

I don't follow the final lines: > But if that makes all the difference, it means voters in States with smaller markets are constitutionally entitled to greater authority to regulate in- state sales than voters in States with larger markets. So much for the Constitution’s “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the States.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hgsgm 3y ago
CA doesn't owe anything if a business likes CA more than WY.
insonable 3y ago
gorsuch is complaining that if california restricts its in-state sales based on xyz, then firms everywhere will optimize in ways influenced by requirements xyz. with california being quite a lucrative market, its requirements will thus have influence over producers everywhere if they intend to sell to california. presumably if it were a more inconsequential state setting some requirements, then gorsuch wouldn't have so much of a problem and might go along. roberts points out that this is against the spirit of states having equal sovereignty. in other words, you can't let wyoming set requirements abc because who cares about that market, and then turn around and tell california "you're too big to set requirements xyz" and have that seen as fair.