5 ms·

To put it a bit differently: Congress has not been able to pass substantial laws in decades. The executive branch has filled in by interpreting these laws very

To put it a bit differently: Congress has not been able to pass substantial laws in decades. The executive branch has filled in by interpreting these laws very loosely in order to adapt to the changing situation and—importantly—to adapt to changing presidencies. That last part is the single biggest problem with the administrative regime as it has stood hitherto: it means that almost everything that happens in the federal government can be completely undone based on the results of a single nationwide election that we have every four years. It means that every right, every process, every plan that interacts with the federal government in any way has a four-year shelf life. Government by administrative rule is why no one is getting too excited about non-competes getting banned or non-solicitation agreements curtailed. It's why I'm nervous about the future of the IRS's free tax filing software. It's why there are whole industries built up around trying to keep up with the latest about-face that the executive branch has made. The existing system of administrative rules absolutely sucks for stability. It sucks for anyone who gets used to a benefit only to have it stripped out with an administrative change. It sucks for anyone who's trying to plan anything out on a longer timetable than four years. If this forces Congress to get their shit together and pass lasting laws that can't just be upended with the next presidential election or if it forces states to start taking on the role that the federal government has hitherto failed to fill then in the long run this ruling will be better for everyone. It's just going to be very uncomfortable for the next few decades as we sort it all out.

immibis 2y ago
It won't force Congress to do shit. The same flip flop will still happen, but instead of 4-year executive terms, it will be driven by lifetime court appointments. The court is going to remain Republican for the foreseeable future, unlike the presidency.
- sattoshi 2y ago
  Whats the problem? If congress disagrees with what the courts did to fill in the blanks in their laws, they just need to pass new laws.
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    I used to feel this way, and I can't quite identify the totality of what shifted my position, but now I parse this as "we just need to motivate congress" and it feels wrong. The American system has always been full-throated adversarial -- and extremely successful. The historical system of legislature could delegate, and if the delegation went bad, the judiciary could intervene, rather than the legislature has to intervene in every bit of administrative minutae. Analogy would roughly be...idk, the CEO has HR handle pencil procurement. HR, over the years, used this to interpret they could swap in mechanical pencils, erasable pens. But the new CFO tells the board this has to stop, the CEO is responsible for signing off on expenses. And then the employees say this is a good thing, that'll get the CEO more involved. But the CEO is already involved, just busy with other things.
    - sattoshi 2y ago
      The problem aren’t interpretative courts, its unclear laws. The pencil example is all fun and games, but swap « buying mechanical pencils » with « sending people to prison », and then it makes more sense why some people prefer the judiciary branch to constrain the power of HR when there’s ambiguity.
      - throwway120385 2y ago
        It's pretty much impossible to write a statute to account for every single possible situation and interpretation. In one county where I live we recently had a huge kerfluffle over the county code section about a ferry and ferry fares and what kinds of things the farebox can be spent on. At one point there were three different rewrites of the same statute, all purported to accomplish the same goal, and all markedly different depending on which motivated entity wrote the proposal. At any rate someone still would have needed to interpret the statute.
        sattoshi 2y ago
        The reasonable course of action is to pick one of the three rewrites that codify a proposed interpretation of the currently ambiguous rules. What would be unreasonable is to give those 3 options to a judge and ask them to do a coin toss on which one is right, and then let it sit that way. I may be radical in this, but I wish the judiciary could force the legislative branch to decide on what the law they wrote means.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > It won't force Congress to do shit. In which case the states will step in. We're already seeing this happen post-Dobbs, with blue states falling over themselves to create safe havens. If Congress can't get anything done and the courts won't let the executive branch do anything then that trend will continue with workers' rights and everything else. Maybe our problem is that the country has just gotten too big to run effectively as a single 350-million person democracy, and it's time for the state governments to step up and stand up for their people. Either way—federally or at the state level—we need written laws drafted by elected representatives in a body that has more inertia than the single position of chief executive.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    That would be great!
  - dangoor 2y ago
    > Maybe our problem is that the country has just gotten too big to run effectively as a single 350-million person democracy, and it's time for the state governments to step up and stand up for their people. Or, perhaps, we just need to alter some aspects of that government to run better. For example: changing the size of the House of Representatives to make it more representative. It wasn't supposed to be stuck at 435. Switching away from first past the post voting would also help enable more diverse voices within the government.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > Switching away from first past the post voting would also help enable more diverse voices within the government. You have my full agreement on that! Unfortunately that's not going to happen at the national level any time soon, both parties benefit from first-past-the-post too much. We'll see better luck experimenting with it at the local and state level.
  - datavirtue 2y ago
    I Louisiana today, Bibles were mandated in every classroom and all teachers are mandated to "teach from the Bible." I imagine there are some seriously distraught teachers in that state right now. We are in dark times.
itsdavesanders 2y ago
And imagine how our allies feel. If you can’t count on the U.S. for more than about 3 years at a time, then you quickly move away from them and insure you aren’t so tied to them that a foreign election suddenly makes you vulnerable. Which then makes everyone weaker as a whole and easier to pick off. Which is why U.S. foreign adversaries have been actively sowing chaos for a decade.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  FWIW nothing changed re: presidential power over foreign relations. The judiciary held that the legislature can't empower an agency.
- beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - consumer451 2y ago
    The biggest beneficiary of Pax Americana is the United States, the second biggest is the entire world.
    - klibertp 2y ago
      Yeah, if only it didn't run on a "first past the post" system...
  - knowaveragejoe 2y ago
    That is exactly what the US' adversaries would like you to believe is the case. By all means, carry water for the despots of the world as you turn inwards.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - phillipcarter 2y ago
    This is a very uncharitable view of how foreign policy works. It is absolutely in our best interest to not only maintain strong diplomatic ties with peoples and countries who share our values, but also cooperate in defense efforts and ensuring safety and security from military actions that would undo things we benefit from in the long term.
refulgentis 2y ago
I used to hold this. I can't put a finger on what exactly changed. I strongly believe Congress is productive enough, and the ambiguity around this sort of thing is good, because it allows flexibility in the face of changing circumstances. With such a vibrant public democracy as America, things that drag out, like allowing non-competes for fast food workers, are best served with public participation, a long process, and sunlight. It's not as tightly coupled to a presidential administration as you may think, that's where "Deep State" grumbling comes in: if it's imposed by presidential fiat, its in violation of a 1000 mundane things that courts have historically consistently enforced: a long, public, process with a thorough cost/benefit analysis that indicates a net benefit. So, the "Deep State" (administrative processes that are required to occur for a rule change at an administrative agency, to whom authority was delegated to by the legislature) prevents a unilateral presidency. Parsing through the FTC press release on non-competes provides some indica of the sunlight/processes involved. [1] [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sshconnection 2y ago
If you think the administrative flip flop is bad now, wait until Trump implements schedule F.
skhunted 2y ago
There has always been judicial review in cases where some affected party felt that administrators of an agency went beyond the mandate. This has been the norm for many decades now. The Supreme court legalized foreign money to use in election campaigns with Citizens United. It has gutted voting rights by allowing thousands of polling stations to be closed. You can easily guess where those polling closures mostly have occurred. A few days ago it effectively legalized bribing government officials. It has taken away rights of women, convicts, and now the ability of government agencies to carry out their mandates. There are major power imbalances in the country and it is not sustainable. The path we are on leads to a breakup of the country or a rewriting of the Constitution. The status quo is not sustainable.
pstuart 2y ago
> Congress has not been able to pass substantial laws in decades For those in the sway of the Federalist Society, that's a feature, not a bug.
- PeterCorless 2y ago
  It is ironic in the extreme that the "Federalist" Society want power to devolve to the states. Jefferson is snickering in the grave.
idiotsecant 2y ago
This will not force Congress to suddenly become a responsible and capable legislative body. It will result in there being less government. Fewer rules to protect consumers, fewer rules to keep our air, water, and ecosystem healthy, fewer rules to prevent the powerful few from exploiting the many. Make no mistake about it, this is about giving more power to the powerful, and it's working. This is the swan song of America if we don't wake up.
mywittyname 2y ago
> The existing system of administrative rules absolutely sucks for stability. This new system is even worse. At some point, the Judiciary will make a poor ruling. Perhaps this ruling is impossible to hold to, but maybe the executive branch decides to usurp the court of its own volition. Then what? The checks and balances system of our government only works when everyone plays nice. But if push comes to shove, then the executive branch is the one that holds all the power. They don't have to obey the legislator nor the judiciary -- neither has any real capability to enforce their will. The country has been slow rolling into single pillar government structure for decades now. IMHO, this ruling is a huge step towards solidifying the executive branch as the de facto sole branch of government. Government agencies were provided a mechanism for all three branches of government to work together, legislators provided scope and leadership, the judiciary provided checks, and the executive provided the operations. Once the agencies are all gutted, a future administration is going get an opportunity to act on their own via executive authority and they will ignore any attempts by the court to stop them, because the court is literally powerless in all but word. And that's what opens the door to a president who begins seizing assets of political opponents. Lots of authoritarian countries masquerade as democracies because legislators and judiciaries are inherently powerless to stop executives. I know plenty of people will counter with the old way was supporting an authoritarian executive. But to them, I'll point out that the agency system has ~100 years of efficacy behind it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- datavirtue 2y ago
  Too much importance and deferral has been granted to the courts. It was a mistake to imbue that institution as the "third branch of government." I came to view that take as propaganda when I was younger and have soured increasingly more on the SCOTUS over these last few decades. I view that court as very dangerous and in need of being smacked down a peg or two. Congress has ultimate authority, period. So the SCOTUS running amok is a very bad look and smell.
  - briandear 2y ago
malcolmgreaves 2y ago
You have an incorrect understanding here. What was occurring now was not "government by administrative rule" as you put it. It was government by rules passed by Congress. Congress explicitly defers on specifics of some laws to agencies because it is not qualified to provide specifics. Agencies, staffed with experts, are capable of making fine-grained decisions on how to implement laws that Congress passes. This SCOUTS ruling means there will be *significantly more* ambiguity and instability in the federal government. *More* things will be up for destabilization by Republican activist judges. The outcome will be a government that works less efficiently and effectively. This is the Republican play book: purposely make the government worse, distract with absurd claims, then come election time lie and say that the Democrats want to make the Republican's version of bad government even more expansive. Every four to eight years, the Democrats clean up the Republican's mess. Government gets better. Then Republicans lie again and the cycle repeats.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > This is the Republican play book: purposely make the government worse, distract with absurd claims, then come election time lie and say that the Democrats want to make the Republican's version of bad government even more expansive. Every four to eight years, the Democrats clean up the Republican's mess. Government gets better. Then Republicans lie again and the cycle repeats. You may already understand this, but just to make it explicit: the Democrats are not the good guys in this process. They benefit just as much as Republicans from good government being perpetually on the brink. They win the presidency because we're terrified of what Republicans will do if they don't. The system is currently structured to reward both sides for brinkmanship and that's why it sucks. We need a system that reduces the amount of change riding on any single election and neither party wants a change to such a system. If SCOTUS is as much an extension of the Republican party as people here assume then I think we'll find in 30 years that they badly shot themselves in the foot.
binarymax 2y ago
This won’t change Congress, which is more partisan than ever. It just means what we have in code now is what we are stuck with for a really really long time.
- lolinder 2y ago
  That's why I included the "or": the other option is that the states will take up the slack (and they will take it up, we're already seeing that after Dobbs). We're at the scale now where majority rule at the federal level will usually leave 170 million people unhappy. If we can't get anything done at the federal level that might be a sign that we've hit the maximum size+diversity threshold for a functioning democracy and it's time to resolve more of our issues at a smaller, more local level.
underlipton 2y ago
>If this forces Congress to get their shit together and pass lasting laws It won't. People will just suffer while federal workers sit around twiddling their thumbs, because they no longer have the power to figure out how to carry out their missions. And then this will be used to label their jobs as "waste" in order to justify shutting down their agencies. Tada, the real aim of vaporizing regulators and government services achieved. If you found our perennial government shutdown circus entertaining, you're in for a treat.
kelnos 2y ago
I agree, but what's the solution? Aside from a complete overhaul of our system of government, which realistically would require armed revolution or some sort of bizarrely-peaceful military-supported coup d'etat. > If this forces Congress to get their shit together and pass lasting laws It won't. One of our political parties is hell bent on removing rights, reducing protections on workers, the environment, everything. They want a significantly smaller federal government. They wield enough power that there is no way that, for example, if Congress had to do all of the EPA's rulemaking jobs, anything would actually get passed. States have some ability to take this on (for now, at least). California's vehicle emission standards, which end up being the de-facto national standards, are one example. But I could easily see conservative SCOTUS not letting this stand, and coming up with bullshit reasons why those rules are unenforceable. And this is a part of the problem. The conservatives cry "states' rights!" at every turn, but they are still quick to strike down (at a federal level) things that progressive states do that they don't like. The other part of the problem is that there are quite a few policy things that you can't leave to a patchwork of states to decide for themselves. You need national unity for it to matter. > It's just going to be very uncomfortable for the next few decades as we sort it all out. Awesome, by the time that happens, I'll be an old man unlikely to see any of the benefits of it eventually becoming sorted out. More likely, I expect Trump to win this fall, and he'll dismantle and destroy the executive branch, and further degrade any trust in institutions that we have left. ... One thing I do think would help would be to fix representation in the House. House membership was regularly expanded as the nation's population grew, but has been left static for over a century now. One of the more reasonable methods I've seen for determining the total number of seats in Congress would have us at around 700 now[0] (vs. the 435 we actually have). There are a lot of options here, and it can be instructive to look at other countries for comparison. The UK has a fifth of the US's population, but their House of Commons has 650 members. But on the other end of the spectrum, India, with a population 4x that of the US, has a lower Parliament chamber with a maximum of only 552, though that's a constitutional requirement and perhaps harder to change. Anyhow, if we were more like the UK, the US House would have around 3,250 members (a quite nice ~100k constituents per representative). That's probably a bit too unwieldy? But if we were more like India, the US house would shrink to 135, which is almost certainly far too few (mind-boggling ~2.5M constituents per representative). Not only would a larger House mean better representation for constituents (both being more proportional, and having each representative represent fewer people), but it would mean larger committees, and more people to tackle various rulemaking jobs that are currently handled by executive agencies. I do expect that a larger, more proportional House would end up being more left-leaning, so I'm obviously biased at least somewhat in my desire for this to happen. (As an aside, would fewer constituents per Congressional district make gerrymandering more difficult? Intuitively I think so, though I have no real basis for believing that.) [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/28/danielle-allen-democracy-reform-house-representatives-districts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/28/danielle-... (cube-root method)

immibis 2y ago

It won't force Congress to do shit. The same flip flop will still happen, but instead of 4-year executive terms, it will be driven by lifetime court appointments. The court is going to remain Republican for the foreseeable future, unlike the presidency.

sattoshi 2y ago
Whats the problem? If congress disagrees with what the courts did to fill in the blanks in their laws, they just need to pass new laws.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  I used to feel this way, and I can't quite identify the totality of what shifted my position, but now I parse this as "we just need to motivate congress" and it feels wrong. The American system has always been full-throated adversarial -- and extremely successful. The historical system of legislature could delegate, and if the delegation went bad, the judiciary could intervene, rather than the legislature has to intervene in every bit of administrative minutae. Analogy would roughly be...idk, the CEO has HR handle pencil procurement. HR, over the years, used this to interpret they could swap in mechanical pencils, erasable pens. But the new CFO tells the board this has to stop, the CEO is responsible for signing off on expenses. And then the employees say this is a good thing, that'll get the CEO more involved. But the CEO is already involved, just busy with other things.
  - sattoshi 2y ago
    The problem aren’t interpretative courts, its unclear laws. The pencil example is all fun and games, but swap « buying mechanical pencils » with « sending people to prison », and then it makes more sense why some people prefer the judiciary branch to constrain the power of HR when there’s ambiguity.
    - throwway120385 2y ago
      It's pretty much impossible to write a statute to account for every single possible situation and interpretation. In one county where I live we recently had a huge kerfluffle over the county code section about a ferry and ferry fares and what kinds of things the farebox can be spent on. At one point there were three different rewrites of the same statute, all purported to accomplish the same goal, and all markedly different depending on which motivated entity wrote the proposal. At any rate someone still would have needed to interpret the statute.
      - sattoshi 2y ago
        The reasonable course of action is to pick one of the three rewrites that codify a proposed interpretation of the currently ambiguous rules. What would be unreasonable is to give those 3 options to a judge and ask them to do a coin toss on which one is right, and then let it sit that way. I may be radical in this, but I wish the judiciary could force the legislative branch to decide on what the law they wrote means.
lolinder 2y ago
> It won't force Congress to do shit. In which case the states will step in. We're already seeing this happen post-Dobbs, with blue states falling over themselves to create safe havens. If Congress can't get anything done and the courts won't let the executive branch do anything then that trend will continue with workers' rights and everything else. Maybe our problem is that the country has just gotten too big to run effectively as a single 350-million person democracy, and it's time for the state governments to step up and stand up for their people. Either way—federally or at the state level—we need written laws drafted by elected representatives in a body that has more inertia than the single position of chief executive.
- rayiner 2y ago
  That would be great!
- dangoor 2y ago
  > Maybe our problem is that the country has just gotten too big to run effectively as a single 350-million person democracy, and it's time for the state governments to step up and stand up for their people. Or, perhaps, we just need to alter some aspects of that government to run better. For example: changing the size of the House of Representatives to make it more representative. It wasn't supposed to be stuck at 435. Switching away from first past the post voting would also help enable more diverse voices within the government.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > Switching away from first past the post voting would also help enable more diverse voices within the government. You have my full agreement on that! Unfortunately that's not going to happen at the national level any time soon, both parties benefit from first-past-the-post too much. We'll see better luck experimenting with it at the local and state level.
- datavirtue 2y ago
  I Louisiana today, Bibles were mandated in every classroom and all teachers are mandated to "teach from the Bible." I imagine there are some seriously distraught teachers in that state right now. We are in dark times.

itsdavesanders 2y ago

And imagine how our allies feel. If you can’t count on the U.S. for more than about 3 years at a time, then you quickly move away from them and insure you aren’t so tied to them that a foreign election suddenly makes you vulnerable. Which then makes everyone weaker as a whole and easier to pick off. Which is why U.S. foreign adversaries have been actively sowing chaos for a decade.

refulgentis 2y ago
FWIW nothing changed re: presidential power over foreign relations. The judiciary held that the legislature can't empower an agency.
beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
[flagged]
- consumer451 2y ago
  The biggest beneficiary of Pax Americana is the United States, the second biggest is the entire world.
  - klibertp 2y ago
    Yeah, if only it didn't run on a "first past the post" system...
- knowaveragejoe 2y ago
  That is exactly what the US' adversaries would like you to believe is the case. By all means, carry water for the despots of the world as you turn inwards.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- phillipcarter 2y ago
  This is a very uncharitable view of how foreign policy works. It is absolutely in our best interest to not only maintain strong diplomatic ties with peoples and countries who share our values, but also cooperate in defense efforts and ensuring safety and security from military actions that would undo things we benefit from in the long term.

refulgentis 2y ago

I used to hold this. I can't put a finger on what exactly changed. I strongly believe Congress is productive enough, and the ambiguity around this sort of thing is good, because it allows flexibility in the face of changing circumstances. With such a vibrant public democracy as America, things that drag out, like allowing non-competes for fast food workers, are best served with public participation, a long process, and sunlight. It's not as tightly coupled to a presidential administration as you may think, that's where "Deep State" grumbling comes in: if it's imposed by presidential fiat, its in violation of a 1000 mundane things that courts have historically consistently enforced: a long, public, process with a thorough cost/benefit analysis that indicates a net benefit. So, the "Deep State" (administrative processes that are required to occur for a rule change at an administrative agency, to whom authority was delegated to by the legislature) prevents a unilateral presidency. Parsing through the FTC press release on non-competes provides some indica of the sunlight/processes involved. [1] [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sshconnection 2y ago

If you think the administrative flip flop is bad now, wait until Trump implements schedule F.

skhunted 2y ago

There has always been judicial review in cases where some affected party felt that administrators of an agency went beyond the mandate. This has been the norm for many decades now. The Supreme court legalized foreign money to use in election campaigns with Citizens United. It has gutted voting rights by allowing thousands of polling stations to be closed. You can easily guess where those polling closures mostly have occurred. A few days ago it effectively legalized bribing government officials. It has taken away rights of women, convicts, and now the ability of government agencies to carry out their mandates. There are major power imbalances in the country and it is not sustainable. The path we are on leads to a breakup of the country or a rewriting of the Constitution. The status quo is not sustainable.

pstuart 2y ago

> Congress has not been able to pass substantial laws in decades For those in the sway of the Federalist Society, that's a feature, not a bug.

PeterCorless 2y ago
It is ironic in the extreme that the "Federalist" Society want power to devolve to the states. Jefferson is snickering in the grave.

idiotsecant 2y ago

This will not force Congress to suddenly become a responsible and capable legislative body. It will result in there being less government. Fewer rules to protect consumers, fewer rules to keep our air, water, and ecosystem healthy, fewer rules to prevent the powerful few from exploiting the many. Make no mistake about it, this is about giving more power to the powerful, and it's working. This is the swan song of America if we don't wake up.

mywittyname 2y ago

> The existing system of administrative rules absolutely sucks for stability. This new system is even worse. At some point, the Judiciary will make a poor ruling. Perhaps this ruling is impossible to hold to, but maybe the executive branch decides to usurp the court of its own volition. Then what? The checks and balances system of our government only works when everyone plays nice. But if push comes to shove, then the executive branch is the one that holds all the power. They don't have to obey the legislator nor the judiciary -- neither has any real capability to enforce their will. The country has been slow rolling into single pillar government structure for decades now. IMHO, this ruling is a huge step towards solidifying the executive branch as the de facto sole branch of government. Government agencies were provided a mechanism for all three branches of government to work together, legislators provided scope and leadership, the judiciary provided checks, and the executive provided the operations. Once the agencies are all gutted, a future administration is going get an opportunity to act on their own via executive authority and they will ignore any attempts by the court to stop them, because the court is literally powerless in all but word. And that's what opens the door to a president who begins seizing assets of political opponents. Lots of authoritarian countries masquerade as democracies because legislators and judiciaries are inherently powerless to stop executives. I know plenty of people will counter with the old way was supporting an authoritarian executive. But to them, I'll point out that the agency system has ~100 years of efficacy behind it.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
datavirtue 2y ago
Too much importance and deferral has been granted to the courts. It was a mistake to imbue that institution as the "third branch of government." I came to view that take as propaganda when I was younger and have soured increasingly more on the SCOTUS over these last few decades. I view that court as very dangerous and in need of being smacked down a peg or two. Congress has ultimate authority, period. So the SCOTUS running amok is a very bad look and smell.
- briandear 2y ago

malcolmgreaves 2y ago

You have an incorrect understanding here. What was occurring now was not "government by administrative rule" as you put it. It was government by rules passed by Congress. Congress explicitly defers on specifics of some laws to agencies because it is not qualified to provide specifics. Agencies, staffed with experts, are capable of making fine-grained decisions on how to implement laws that Congress passes. This SCOUTS ruling means there will be *significantly more* ambiguity and instability in the federal government. *More* things will be up for destabilization by Republican activist judges. The outcome will be a government that works less efficiently and effectively. This is the Republican play book: purposely make the government worse, distract with absurd claims, then come election time lie and say that the Democrats want to make the Republican's version of bad government even more expansive. Every four to eight years, the Democrats clean up the Republican's mess. Government gets better. Then Republicans lie again and the cycle repeats.

lolinder 2y ago
> This is the Republican play book: purposely make the government worse, distract with absurd claims, then come election time lie and say that the Democrats want to make the Republican's version of bad government even more expansive. Every four to eight years, the Democrats clean up the Republican's mess. Government gets better. Then Republicans lie again and the cycle repeats. You may already understand this, but just to make it explicit: the Democrats are not the good guys in this process. They benefit just as much as Republicans from good government being perpetually on the brink. They win the presidency because we're terrified of what Republicans will do if they don't. The system is currently structured to reward both sides for brinkmanship and that's why it sucks. We need a system that reduces the amount of change riding on any single election and neither party wants a change to such a system. If SCOTUS is as much an extension of the Republican party as people here assume then I think we'll find in 30 years that they badly shot themselves in the foot.

binarymax 2y ago

This won’t change Congress, which is more partisan than ever. It just means what we have in code now is what we are stuck with for a really really long time.

lolinder 2y ago
That's why I included the "or": the other option is that the states will take up the slack (and they will take it up, we're already seeing that after Dobbs). We're at the scale now where majority rule at the federal level will usually leave 170 million people unhappy. If we can't get anything done at the federal level that might be a sign that we've hit the maximum size+diversity threshold for a functioning democracy and it's time to resolve more of our issues at a smaller, more local level.

underlipton 2y ago

>If this forces Congress to get their shit together and pass lasting laws It won't. People will just suffer while federal workers sit around twiddling their thumbs, because they no longer have the power to figure out how to carry out their missions. And then this will be used to label their jobs as "waste" in order to justify shutting down their agencies. Tada, the real aim of vaporizing regulators and government services achieved. If you found our perennial government shutdown circus entertaining, you're in for a treat.

kelnos 2y ago

I agree, but what's the solution? Aside from a complete overhaul of our system of government, which realistically would require armed revolution or some sort of bizarrely-peaceful military-supported coup d'etat. > If this forces Congress to get their shit together and pass lasting laws It won't. One of our political parties is hell bent on removing rights, reducing protections on workers, the environment, everything. They want a significantly smaller federal government. They wield enough power that there is no way that, for example, if Congress had to do all of the EPA's rulemaking jobs, anything would actually get passed. States have some ability to take this on (for now, at least). California's vehicle emission standards, which end up being the de-facto national standards, are one example. But I could easily see conservative SCOTUS not letting this stand, and coming up with bullshit reasons why those rules are unenforceable. And this is a part of the problem. The conservatives cry "states' rights!" at every turn, but they are still quick to strike down (at a federal level) things that progressive states do that they don't like. The other part of the problem is that there are quite a few policy things that you can't leave to a patchwork of states to decide for themselves. You need national unity for it to matter. > It's just going to be very uncomfortable for the next few decades as we sort it all out. Awesome, by the time that happens, I'll be an old man unlikely to see any of the benefits of it eventually becoming sorted out. More likely, I expect Trump to win this fall, and he'll dismantle and destroy the executive branch, and further degrade any trust in institutions that we have left. ... One thing I do think would help would be to fix representation in the House. House membership was regularly expanded as the nation's population grew, but has been left static for over a century now. One of the more reasonable methods I've seen for determining the total number of seats in Congress would have us at around 700 now[0] (vs. the 435 we actually have). There are a lot of options here, and it can be instructive to look at other countries for comparison. The UK has a fifth of the US's population, but their House of Commons has 650 members. But on the other end of the spectrum, India, with a population 4x that of the US, has a lower Parliament chamber with a maximum of only 552, though that's a constitutional requirement and perhaps harder to change. Anyhow, if we were more like the UK, the US House would have around 3,250 members (a quite nice ~100k constituents per representative). That's probably a bit too unwieldy? But if we were more like India, the US house would shrink to 135, which is almost certainly far too few (mind-boggling ~2.5M constituents per representative). Not only would a larger House mean better representation for constituents (both being more proportional, and having each representative represent fewer people), but it would mean larger committees, and more people to tackle various rulemaking jobs that are currently handled by executive agencies. I do expect that a larger, more proportional House would end up being more left-leaning, so I'm obviously biased at least somewhat in my desire for this to happen. (As an aside, would fewer constituents per Congressional district make gerrymandering more difficult? Intuitively I think so, though I have no real basis for believing that.) [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/28/danielle-allen-democracy-reform-house-representatives-districts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/28/danielle-... (cube-root method)