4 ms·

SCOTUS has to be checked somehow. Make no mistake about it, this is another power grab. This SCOTUS is snatching up Executive and Congressional powers day after

by 303uru 3y ago

SCOTUS has to be checked somehow. Make no mistake about it, this is another power grab. This SCOTUS is snatching up Executive and Congressional powers day after day and assigning them unto itself. Do Conservatives really want to live in a world where courts and often ultimately SCOTUS are deciding labor matters, which drugs are safe & efficacious, whether or not it's safe for PFAS to be in your drinking water? Because this, Chevron, and other cases being heard and under review are on the path to do just that.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dmatech 3y ago
No, but it's perfectly fine for lawmakers to make laws setting these standards (ideally with the input of experts). That's how we get local building codes. The ultimate power to make policy choices should be made by lawmakers who can be voted out. Bureaucrats are too insulated. An individual bureaucrat can't feasibly be fired by either a President or the Congress.
- rob74 3y ago
  Neither can a Supreme Court judge...
- 303uru 3y ago
  No one is more insulated than SCOTUS, period, end of story. Your point is moot.
- jaybrendansmith 3y ago
  How are bureaucrats insulated, exactly? Congress can change laws whenever they want. Read your history ... when congress first provided the federal government the ability to collect tariffs, they didn't include in the constitution instructions for how the US Coast Guard would work. Hamilton did that, providing regulation for exactly what kind of boats, equipment, employees, and many other details. It would have been unthinkable by the founders that the Supreme Court would be able to vote to disallow the use of a certain kind of boat, or the policing of a specific waterway. These corporations are attempting to get the US Supreme Court to re-litigate the entire 250 years of settled law and regulation. There are no words.
solardev 3y ago
I think the Conservatives primarily want power redistributed to whoever's on their side in any given decade. The particular mechanisms and bureaucracies don't really matter, and it's fine if democratic pillars are destroyed in the process as long as "their guys" ultimately get what they want. The liberals seem more willing to play by the rules and not leave a bunch of collateral damage along the way, which is why they keep losing... every small by-the-book gain is overturned and overpowered tenfold with the next Conservative administration. FWIW I think there's a difference here between the big-C Conservative politicians and judges who are hopelessly corrupt, vs the run-of-the-mill small-c conservative voters who keep voting for them because of virtue signals (guns, abortion, defense, anti-wokism, whatever). The corruption isn't really a high concern to them, either a positive or negative, as long as they get their values enshrined into political power. It's not really SCOTUS vs the Executive, it's whatever pathway to power they have available at any given juncture in history. They're very good at pivoting and projecting! Not to say it's admirable, but it's undoubtedly very effective, having captured almost the entirety of the US power structure over the last decade while also striving to make sure their liberal opponents cannot easily reverse those gains. Having so thoroughly captured SCOTUS that they can rewrite/reinterpret the Constitution at will is just the latest move in a long series of such maneuvers over the past decades, skillfully executed.
duped 3y ago
The fault here is thinking that Republicans operate in good faith or consistently. They don't. They just want to be able to persecute people, and maybe get richer along the way.
treyd 3y ago
> Do Conservatives really want to live in a world where [...] Yes that is literally what conservatives have always stood for since we developed the term "conservative" to stand for that kind of political stance. Back then it was to preserve the power of the French aristocracy over the rising calls for democracy. Today it's to preserve the power of the wealthy and over that of everyone that has to actually work for a living. They use different tactics, deflections, and posturing to justify their positions, and are willing to give different kinds of concessions in order to achieve those goals today, but it's been essentially the same overarching theme for a couple hundred years. A well-functioning democracy (in this case, one where employees can organize to negotiate the terms of their employment) is an obstacle to them that they want to clear.
- b800h 3y ago
  A rather partisan definition. Modern conservatives, like Burke, have made the observation that change is frequently for the worse, and fast change promotes chaos and suffering, such as during the Reign of Terror.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nemo44x 3y ago
Should be sent to the states where they belong. Congress and Exec just love creating unelected offices that perpetuate the regimes power without any democratic check. Just expand and consume more and more. Local is best. Send this kind of thing back to states where it belongs.

by 303uru 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dmatech 3y ago

No, but it's perfectly fine for lawmakers to make laws setting these standards (ideally with the input of experts). That's how we get local building codes. The ultimate power to make policy choices should be made by lawmakers who can be voted out. Bureaucrats are too insulated. An individual bureaucrat can't feasibly be fired by either a President or the Congress.

rob74 3y ago
Neither can a Supreme Court judge...
303uru 3y ago
No one is more insulated than SCOTUS, period, end of story. Your point is moot.
jaybrendansmith 3y ago
How are bureaucrats insulated, exactly? Congress can change laws whenever they want. Read your history ... when congress first provided the federal government the ability to collect tariffs, they didn't include in the constitution instructions for how the US Coast Guard would work. Hamilton did that, providing regulation for exactly what kind of boats, equipment, employees, and many other details. It would have been unthinkable by the founders that the Supreme Court would be able to vote to disallow the use of a certain kind of boat, or the policing of a specific waterway. These corporations are attempting to get the US Supreme Court to re-litigate the entire 250 years of settled law and regulation. There are no words.

solardev 3y ago

I think the Conservatives primarily want power redistributed to whoever's on their side in any given decade. The particular mechanisms and bureaucracies don't really matter, and it's fine if democratic pillars are destroyed in the process as long as "their guys" ultimately get what they want. The liberals seem more willing to play by the rules and not leave a bunch of collateral damage along the way, which is why they keep losing... every small by-the-book gain is overturned and overpowered tenfold with the next Conservative administration. FWIW I think there's a difference here between the big-C Conservative politicians and judges who are hopelessly corrupt, vs the run-of-the-mill small-c conservative voters who keep voting for them because of virtue signals (guns, abortion, defense, anti-wokism, whatever). The corruption isn't really a high concern to them, either a positive or negative, as long as they get their values enshrined into political power. It's not really SCOTUS vs the Executive, it's whatever pathway to power they have available at any given juncture in history. They're very good at pivoting and projecting! Not to say it's admirable, but it's undoubtedly very effective, having captured almost the entirety of the US power structure over the last decade while also striving to make sure their liberal opponents cannot easily reverse those gains. Having so thoroughly captured SCOTUS that they can rewrite/reinterpret the Constitution at will is just the latest move in a long series of such maneuvers over the past decades, skillfully executed.

duped 3y ago

The fault here is thinking that Republicans operate in good faith or consistently. They don't. They just want to be able to persecute people, and maybe get richer along the way.

treyd 3y ago

> Do Conservatives really want to live in a world where [...] Yes that is literally what conservatives have always stood for since we developed the term "conservative" to stand for that kind of political stance. Back then it was to preserve the power of the French aristocracy over the rising calls for democracy. Today it's to preserve the power of the wealthy and over that of everyone that has to actually work for a living. They use different tactics, deflections, and posturing to justify their positions, and are willing to give different kinds of concessions in order to achieve those goals today, but it's been essentially the same overarching theme for a couple hundred years. A well-functioning democracy (in this case, one where employees can organize to negotiate the terms of their employment) is an obstacle to them that they want to clear.

b800h 3y ago
A rather partisan definition. Modern conservatives, like Burke, have made the observation that change is frequently for the worse, and fast change promotes chaos and suffering, such as during the Reign of Terror.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nemo44x 3y ago

Should be sent to the states where they belong. Congress and Exec just love creating unelected offices that perpetuate the regimes power without any democratic check. Just expand and consume more and more. Local is best. Send this kind of thing back to states where it belongs.