7 ms·

> 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If Congress were to pass, say, abortion guarantees or Chevron Deference into law, then good luck trying to get them repealed. See also Obamacare, which hasn't been repealed after it was passed despite hell being raised.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.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > . See also Obamacare, which hasn't been repealed after it was passed despite hell being raised. Let's see how long that lasts now. Overturning Chevron was a step to that very end. It puts the Department of Health & Human Services on the chopping block.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Repealing and overturning are two completely different things done by two completely different branches of government.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      The overturning of chevron now allows the federal courts to prevent the HHS and CMS from doing their jobs which can prevent the Affordable Care Act from being carried out effectively. Once it's no longer functioning the republicans will have a much easier time overturning it without massive backlash from the American public who overwhelmingly support it (most importantly without pissing off the independent vote).
ksenzee 2y ago
I used to think this. I have come to believe the opposite. We can’t _never_ update _any_ laws. It’s chaos.
autoexec 2y ago
I don't think there are many Americans who prefer a deadlocked and dysfunctional congress that is incapable of doing their jobs. We have a lot of things that need doing in this country which can't get done when obstructionists stand in the way. There will always be some number of petty people who don't care what the costs are as long as "their team" isn't allowing the "other team" a win, and those who don't want the federal government doing anything other than war, but when our government shuts down most American's aren't very happy about it. Most have a list of things they'd like their representatives in Washington to be doing for them, and they don't view the obstructionists acting like toddlers preventing those things from happening very favorably. In the end, a partisan pissing match doesn't actually help the American people and our government should be working for us, not sitting on their hands doing nothing while the American people suffer and backslide. As long as election results are entirely divorced from approval ratings congress has zero incentive to work for the people though and they can get away with preventing the government from being functional/useful for anyone but themselves and the people stuffing their pockets.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  > We have a lot of things that need doing in this country which can't get done when obstructionists stand in the way. I think calling people who oppose your policy ideas “obstructionists” is a neat ad hominem, as if the only reasonable position is yours. What you’re lamenting is that you can’t force an agenda without people agreeing — and when they refuse to agree with you, your agenda can’t happen. While you say “most Americans”, factually, you lack a majority for your agenda: you’re a minority trying to impose itself. That’s democracy.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > I think calling people who oppose your policy ideas “obstructionists” is a neat ad hominem It would be, except that I never actually said that. Plenty of people can disagree with me and not be an obstructionist. A person in congress can even vote against something I'm in favor of and not be an obstructionist. Obstructionists are something very different from just being "people I don't like" > What you’re lamenting is that you can’t force an agenda without people agreeing No, it's certainly not about "forcing an agenda" it's about functional governance which by necessity involves compromise and a willingness to give and take. It's not even always about "agreeing". An obstructionist will vote against their own policy ideas to prevent letting their opponent get their way. > While you say “most Americans”, I mean most Americans. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans want congress to work and they don't like the government shutdowns obstructionists cause. > but factually, you lack a majority for your agenda That's incorrect too. While obstructionists can stand in the way of policies that divide the American public there are also situations where a policy has majority support but is still held up or prevented by obstructionists. If we lived in a country where the approval rating of senators indicated their likelihood of getting elected you might have a point, as obstructionists being elected and re-elected would indicate that the majority of the people support them and their tactics. That's not the country we live in however. For just one example, notable obstructionist Mitch McConnell is the least popular senator in the entire country. He has no reason to stop being an obstructionist though, because how the people feel about him doesn't impact his ability to keep his job. That's not democracy, it's just what happens after many decades of efforts to weaken democracy and erode the ability of the American people to have a meaningful influence on policy and who gets into office.

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.
autoexec 2y ago
> . See also Obamacare, which hasn't been repealed after it was passed despite hell being raised. Let's see how long that lasts now. Overturning Chevron was a step to that very end. It puts the Department of Health & Human Services on the chopping block.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Repealing and overturning are two completely different things done by two completely different branches of government.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    The overturning of chevron now allows the federal courts to prevent the HHS and CMS from doing their jobs which can prevent the Affordable Care Act from being carried out effectively. Once it's no longer functioning the republicans will have a much easier time overturning it without massive backlash from the American public who overwhelmingly support it (most importantly without pissing off the independent vote).

ksenzee 2y ago

I used to think this. I have come to believe the opposite. We can’t _never_ update _any_ laws. It’s chaos.

autoexec 2y ago

I don't think there are many Americans who prefer a deadlocked and dysfunctional congress that is incapable of doing their jobs. We have a lot of things that need doing in this country which can't get done when obstructionists stand in the way. There will always be some number of petty people who don't care what the costs are as long as "their team" isn't allowing the "other team" a win, and those who don't want the federal government doing anything other than war, but when our government shuts down most American's aren't very happy about it. Most have a list of things they'd like their representatives in Washington to be doing for them, and they don't view the obstructionists acting like toddlers preventing those things from happening very favorably. In the end, a partisan pissing match doesn't actually help the American people and our government should be working for us, not sitting on their hands doing nothing while the American people suffer and backslide. As long as election results are entirely divorced from approval ratings congress has zero incentive to work for the people though and they can get away with preventing the government from being functional/useful for anyone but themselves and the people stuffing their pockets.

zmgsabst 2y ago
> We have a lot of things that need doing in this country which can't get done when obstructionists stand in the way. I think calling people who oppose your policy ideas “obstructionists” is a neat ad hominem, as if the only reasonable position is yours. What you’re lamenting is that you can’t force an agenda without people agreeing — and when they refuse to agree with you, your agenda can’t happen. While you say “most Americans”, factually, you lack a majority for your agenda: you’re a minority trying to impose itself. That’s democracy.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > I think calling people who oppose your policy ideas “obstructionists” is a neat ad hominem It would be, except that I never actually said that. Plenty of people can disagree with me and not be an obstructionist. A person in congress can even vote against something I'm in favor of and not be an obstructionist. Obstructionists are something very different from just being "people I don't like" > What you’re lamenting is that you can’t force an agenda without people agreeing No, it's certainly not about "forcing an agenda" it's about functional governance which by necessity involves compromise and a willingness to give and take. It's not even always about "agreeing". An obstructionist will vote against their own policy ideas to prevent letting their opponent get their way. > While you say “most Americans”, I mean most Americans. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans want congress to work and they don't like the government shutdowns obstructionists cause. > but factually, you lack a majority for your agenda That's incorrect too. While obstructionists can stand in the way of policies that divide the American public there are also situations where a policy has majority support but is still held up or prevented by obstructionists. If we lived in a country where the approval rating of senators indicated their likelihood of getting elected you might have a point, as obstructionists being elected and re-elected would indicate that the majority of the people support them and their tactics. That's not the country we live in however. For just one example, notable obstructionist Mitch McConnell is the least popular senator in the entire country. He has no reason to stop being an obstructionist though, because how the people feel about him doesn't impact his ability to keep his job. That's not democracy, it's just what happens after many decades of efforts to weaken democracy and erode the ability of the American people to have a meaningful influence on policy and who gets into office.