6 ms·

> Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies thi

> Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. Congress can't actually legislate anything while it's held hostage by obstructionists and there's effectively zero chance that a bunch of republicans who want to dismantle the already inadequate regulations that keep entire communities from being poisoned will vote to remove their power to do exactly that through the supreme court.

kolbe 2y ago
[flagged]
Mountain_Skies 2y ago
How did the obstructionists grant themselves that power?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- malcolmgreaves 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    Gerrymandering is self-limiting. You can gerrymander to increase your party's number of House seats from your state, or you can gerrymander to make your seats more secure, but you can't do both! You can make some seats more secure while others weaker so as to strike a balance between these two goals, but you won't get as many seats as if you optimized for seat count and you won't get as many safe seats as if you optimized for seat safety. If you optimize for seat count then a wave election can easily turn many of those seats over to the other party, and with them control of the House. If you optimize for seat safety then a wave election need only turn over a few of your seats to switch control of the House. We have had lots of wave elections in the past 100 years: 1920, 1932, 1994, 2006, 2008, 2010. Three of those are in the past 20 years. Four in the past 30 years. Gerrymandering isn't all it's cracked up to be. It cannot make any party impervious to wave elections. This, anyways, only as long as all House districts in each state have roughly the same population.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > Gerrymandering is self-limiting. It really isn't. It's self-perpetuating. A gerrymandered state might _eventually_ switch sides, but far more likely it'll become more red (and yes, gerrymandering is predominantly a Republican tactic).
      - mistrial9 2y ago
        maybe that was true a while ago, but no, it is vigorously practiced by both US Democrats and Republicans in the modern age .. source: quantitative Census demography for urban planning
        cyberax 2y ago
        That's 100% opposite of the current state. Historically Democrats and Republicans used the classic gerrymandering. However, now it's pretty much only Republicans who rely on computer-aided models to gerrymander the districts. There _are_ Democratic examples, and the worst ones are in Maryland and Illinois. But they pale before the Republican gerrymandering.
        autoexec 2y ago
        It's true that both parties take part in it, however Democrats feel forced into it and would rather not. Democrats have repeatedly put forth efforts to end the practice. They have little choice but to play by the rules as they are until they manage to finally put a stop to it.
      - cryptonector 2y ago
        Between 1933 and 1995 we had sixty two years of Democrat party majorities in the U.S. Congress. That was before the Internet and back when the U.S. was less polarized than today. And the Great Depression and the New Deal left the Democrats very popular for decades. Today I don't see how gerrymandering could defeat wave elections. Democrat gerrymandering did not prevent 1994, and Republican gerrymandering did not prevent 2006 and 2008.
        2y ago
- throw0101b 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
- winter_blue 2y ago
  It’s partly (1) due to the structure (or rather, flaws) of the US constitution, (2) a ridiculous senate rule, and (3) gerrymandering as others have mentioned. On (1): needing the approval of the senate, house, and president makes it very hard to pass laws. On (2): the senate rule requiring 60% approval has already been repealed for appointments and for budgetary legislation, but it really needs to thrown out. The first two years of Biden’s presidency were mostly lost to obstructionism because of this rule. On (3): this will most likely be banned if democrats get a trifecta federal control, and repeal (2), since gerrymandering primarily just benefits republicans.
indigo0086 2y ago
Welcome to democracy, is it your first time?
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Congress can't actually legislate anything Did you miss the hundreds of billions of dollars of legislating the Congress did this year?
- autoexec 2y ago
  Did you miss the part where I said " while it's held hostage by obstructionists"? When everyone is in agreement, congress is not being held hostage by obstructionists and some things can pass. When obstructionists are in disagreement, they can prevent anything from passing.
- eigen 2y ago
  seems they are legislating less and less by the Congress. The list of acts of the 115th United States Congress includes all Acts of Congress and ratified treaties by the 115th United States Congress, which began on January 3, 2017, and ended on January 3, 2019. The 115th Congress enacted 442 statutes and ratified 6 treaties. The 116th United States Congress, which began on January 3, 2019, and ended on January 3, 2021, enacted 344 public laws and zero private laws The 117th United States Congress, which began on January 3, 2021, and ended on January 3, 2023, enacted 362 public laws and 3 private laws. The 118th United States Congress, which began on January 3, 2023, and will end on January 3, 2025, has enacted 65 public laws and zero private laws [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_115th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_115th_Unit... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_116th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_116th_Unit... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_117th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_117th_Unit... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_118th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_118th_Unit...
  - nradov 2y ago
    Is volume of legislation the correct measure? That seems analogous to clueless managers trying to measure the productivity of software developers by lines of code written.
oceanplexian 2y ago
> Congress can't actually legislate anything while it's held hostage by obstructionists That’s a feature, not a bug.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  This. When the electorate is sufficiently divided or otherwise in the process of debate that there is no consensus, it is proper that the legislative bodies representing the electorate also likewise have no consensus with which to pass new legislation. Also, this feature also works the other way: If Congress were to pass, say, abortion guarantees or Chevron Deference into law, then good luck trying to get them repealed. See also Obamacare, which hasn't been repealed after it was passed despite hell being raised.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    Hard disagree. First, I'd say our system is more the exception that the rule. For example, most parliamentary systems don't take the "gridlock" approach, i.e. where you say "it is proper that the legislative bodies representing the electorate also likewise have no consensus with which to pass new legislation." Instead, they basically give the side that controls parliament the ability to pass legislation, and if they fuck it up, they can get thrown out and another party has their turn - this is essentially exactly what is happening in the UK with the Conservatives getting kicked out of power. The problem with this "eternal gridlock" is that, since Congress can't pass anything, basically the executive branch and the Supreme Court take over legislative roles, which I'd argue is worse. I.e. the executive branch makes a ton of executive orders, which if challenged get decided by the Supreme Court, basically leaving Congress out of it nearly entirely because that legislative body is so feckless.
    - nradov 2y ago
      By objective results, parliamentary systems haven't necessarily produced better outcomes. And there's no need for the federal government to assume so much authority anyway; the states can take care of most issues on their own.

kolbe 2y ago

[flagged]

Mountain_Skies 2y ago

How did the obstructionists grant themselves that power?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
malcolmgreaves 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
- cryptonector 2y ago
  Gerrymandering is self-limiting. You can gerrymander to increase your party's number of House seats from your state, or you can gerrymander to make your seats more secure, but you can't do both! You can make some seats more secure while others weaker so as to strike a balance between these two goals, but you won't get as many seats as if you optimized for seat count and you won't get as many safe seats as if you optimized for seat safety. If you optimize for seat count then a wave election can easily turn many of those seats over to the other party, and with them control of the House. If you optimize for seat safety then a wave election need only turn over a few of your seats to switch control of the House. We have had lots of wave elections in the past 100 years: 1920, 1932, 1994, 2006, 2008, 2010. Three of those are in the past 20 years. Four in the past 30 years. Gerrymandering isn't all it's cracked up to be. It cannot make any party impervious to wave elections. This, anyways, only as long as all House districts in each state have roughly the same population.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > Gerrymandering is self-limiting. It really isn't. It's self-perpetuating. A gerrymandered state might _eventually_ switch sides, but far more likely it'll become more red (and yes, gerrymandering is predominantly a Republican tactic).
    - mistrial9 2y ago
      maybe that was true a while ago, but no, it is vigorously practiced by both US Democrats and Republicans in the modern age .. source: quantitative Census demography for urban planning
      - cyberax 2y ago
        That's 100% opposite of the current state. Historically Democrats and Republicans used the classic gerrymandering. However, now it's pretty much only Republicans who rely on computer-aided models to gerrymander the districts. There _are_ Democratic examples, and the worst ones are in Maryland and Illinois. But they pale before the Republican gerrymandering.
      - autoexec 2y ago
        It's true that both parties take part in it, however Democrats feel forced into it and would rather not. Democrats have repeatedly put forth efforts to end the practice. They have little choice but to play by the rules as they are until they manage to finally put a stop to it.
    - cryptonector 2y ago
      Between 1933 and 1995 we had sixty two years of Democrat party majorities in the U.S. Congress. That was before the Internet and back when the U.S. was less polarized than today. And the Great Depression and the New Deal left the Democrats very popular for decades. Today I don't see how gerrymandering could defeat wave elections. Democrat gerrymandering did not prevent 1994, and Republican gerrymandering did not prevent 2006 and 2008.
      - 2y ago
throw0101b 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
winter_blue 2y ago
It’s partly (1) due to the structure (or rather, flaws) of the US constitution, (2) a ridiculous senate rule, and (3) gerrymandering as others have mentioned. On (1): needing the approval of the senate, house, and president makes it very hard to pass laws. On (2): the senate rule requiring 60% approval has already been repealed for appointments and for budgetary legislation, but it really needs to thrown out. The first two years of Biden’s presidency were mostly lost to obstructionism because of this rule. On (3): this will most likely be banned if democrats get a trifecta federal control, and repeal (2), since gerrymandering primarily just benefits republicans.

indigo0086 2y ago

Welcome to democracy, is it your first time?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Congress can't actually legislate anything Did you miss the hundreds of billions of dollars of legislating the Congress did this year?

autoexec 2y ago
Did you miss the part where I said " while it's held hostage by obstructionists"? When everyone is in agreement, congress is not being held hostage by obstructionists and some things can pass. When obstructionists are in disagreement, they can prevent anything from passing.
eigen 2y ago
seems they are legislating less and less by the Congress. The list of acts of the 115th United States Congress includes all Acts of Congress and ratified treaties by the 115th United States Congress, which began on January 3, 2017, and ended on January 3, 2019. The 115th Congress enacted 442 statutes and ratified 6 treaties. The 116th United States Congress, which began on January 3, 2019, and ended on January 3, 2021, enacted 344 public laws and zero private laws The 117th United States Congress, which began on January 3, 2021, and ended on January 3, 2023, enacted 362 public laws and 3 private laws. The 118th United States Congress, which began on January 3, 2023, and will end on January 3, 2025, has enacted 65 public laws and zero private laws [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_115th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_115th_Unit... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_116th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_116th_Unit... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_117th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_117th_Unit... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_118th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_118th_Unit...
- nradov 2y ago
  Is volume of legislation the correct measure? That seems analogous to clueless managers trying to measure the productivity of software developers by lines of code written.

oceanplexian 2y ago

> Congress can't actually legislate anything while it's held hostage by obstructionists That’s a feature, not a bug.

Dalewyn 2y ago
This. When the electorate is sufficiently divided or otherwise in the process of debate that there is no consensus, it is proper that the legislative bodies representing the electorate also likewise have no consensus with which to pass new legislation. Also, this feature also works the other way: If Congress were to pass, say, abortion guarantees or Chevron Deference into law, then good luck trying to get them repealed. See also Obamacare, which hasn't been repealed after it was passed despite hell being raised.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Hard disagree. First, I'd say our system is more the exception that the rule. For example, most parliamentary systems don't take the "gridlock" approach, i.e. where you say "it is proper that the legislative bodies representing the electorate also likewise have no consensus with which to pass new legislation." Instead, they basically give the side that controls parliament the ability to pass legislation, and if they fuck it up, they can get thrown out and another party has their turn - this is essentially exactly what is happening in the UK with the Conservatives getting kicked out of power. The problem with this "eternal gridlock" is that, since Congress can't pass anything, basically the executive branch and the Supreme Court take over legislative roles, which I'd argue is worse. I.e. the executive branch makes a ton of executive orders, which if challenged get decided by the Supreme Court, basically leaving Congress out of it nearly entirely because that legislative body is so feckless.
  - nradov 2y ago
    By objective results, parliamentary systems haven't necessarily produced better outcomes. And there's no need for the federal government to assume so much authority anyway; the states can take care of most issues on their own.