4 ms·

This isn't an implementation flaw, this is (arguably) by design. You can't regulate campaign spending or duration without regulating political speech, which is

This isn't an implementation flaw, this is (arguably) by design. You can't regulate campaign spending or duration without regulating political speech, which is a huge no-no under the 1st Amendment. I don't actually agree with that argument, of course. SCOTUS has been perfectly willing to go along with "time and manner" regulations on political speech in the past and I don't see why "nobody can spend more than $X or campaign longer than Y days" is forbidden when "nobody can protest the G7 summit" is. The US's free speech extremism has, in practice, turned into a delegated right to censorship. And under current SCOTUS interpretations of the Constitution, the government is equally powerless to stop both speech and private censorship. The true answer, of course, is that Trump and the donor class have coopted SCOTUS into an instrument of centralized power. SCOTUS is the scorpion[0] that stung the Progressive frog. They make this shit up as they go - free speech for me, censorship for thee. Fortunately, SCOTUS's legitimacy is in the toilet, and that power base can be broken; but it requires Congress and the President act to defang SCOTUS in a way that does not merely shift power. It needs to be distributed again. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

dbspin 2y ago
From your lips to God's ears. As a non-American very much staring at tea leaves, I do worry stuffing the supreme court, or removing some of its power is the kind of act that could provoke a complete breakdown in the political system. Republican refusal to participate in the legislature, outright political violence that sort of thing. It's essential to save the democratic process at this point - but perhaps it's naïve to think that ship hasn't sailed. Kind of astonishing to see recent supreme court decisions like Chevron and presumptive immunity, happening with only nominal opposition - rather than say riots in the streets. Seems there's little mandate for radical change, and a democratic victory may simply delay the inevitable.
- NavinF 2y ago
  FYI most americans don't care about any of this. I suspect you're getting your info from chronically online people and the articles they read. That aside, if you're interested in US politics you might wanna look at the details of those decisions. Eg, read this section about the case that brought down Chevron deference. You'll see that pretty much any judge or jury would have sided with the plaintiffs: https://loperbrightcase.com/#:~:text=livelihoods%20at%20risk.-,The%20Case,-The%20issue%20began https://loperbrightcase.com/#:~:text=livelihoods%20at%20risk...
  - dbspin 2y ago
    I've read Trump vs US, including the dissent. It's frankly terrifying. Americans not caring about these issues seems indicative of the media not being fit for purpose - rather than the issues not being existential. I'd argue that the less democratic things get, the more disengaged people tend to become about the details of political and legal decisions. Since they have less influence on them and are already suffering lacks lower down the pyramid of needs. From Sotomayor's dissent "Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. "
    - NavinF 2y ago
      Yeah that's an unfortunate decision and that Sotomayor guy is a good writer, but the decision doesn't significantly affect people who live here and the dissent is not an accurate prediction of the impact. At the end of the day, congress has the power to impeach and elected law makers keep the president in check. What do you think of the case that brought down Chevron deference? That should be a lot easier for you to analyze. Ie. "NOAA fucked around and found out"
      - kmeisthax 2y ago
        So, let me put it in terms people can understand: what is there to stop Biden from having the Secret Service black-bag Trump if Harris loses in November? Or stop Trump from black-bagging whoever beats the Republican that succeeds him in 2028? Or hell, what stops Biden from droning the SCOTUS justices that wrote the majority opinion right now? According to the Supreme Court, the only appropriate venue for that question is a Congressional impeachment. The only time when it looked like a President was going to be impeached and convicted was Nixon. That's why he resigned. But I doubt that would happen today. In fact, you can blame Democrats for this: they didn't convict Clinton when he was trading sexual favors, even though that was absolutely something they should have[0]. And Republicans refused to convict Trump[1] for holding up Ukraine aid for political advantage or for inciting a riot in the Capitol building. It's like if you couldn't be convicted for beating and robbing someone because you refused to sign the guilty plea. As for Chevron deference, let us keep in mind that the alternative to Chevron is legislating from the bench. SCOTUS consistently picks the interpretation of the Constitution that assigns the most power to the judicial branch, which they have absolute control over. The ostensible check on this power is Congress writing a new law, but Congress has been hung for over a decade, which means SCOTUS gets to cowboy-code whatever they want. [0] During the Me Too era of sexual harassment revelations Democrats started realizing "oh wait, we did WHAT back then?!" and recanting [1] A president so nice we impeached him twice.

dbspin 2y ago

From your lips to God's ears. As a non-American very much staring at tea leaves, I do worry stuffing the supreme court, or removing some of its power is the kind of act that could provoke a complete breakdown in the political system. Republican refusal to participate in the legislature, outright political violence that sort of thing. It's essential to save the democratic process at this point - but perhaps it's naïve to think that ship hasn't sailed. Kind of astonishing to see recent supreme court decisions like Chevron and presumptive immunity, happening with only nominal opposition - rather than say riots in the streets. Seems there's little mandate for radical change, and a democratic victory may simply delay the inevitable.

NavinF 2y ago
FYI most americans don't care about any of this. I suspect you're getting your info from chronically online people and the articles they read. That aside, if you're interested in US politics you might wanna look at the details of those decisions. Eg, read this section about the case that brought down Chevron deference. You'll see that pretty much any judge or jury would have sided with the plaintiffs: https://loperbrightcase.com/#:~:text=livelihoods%20at%20risk.-,The%20Case,-The%20issue%20began https://loperbrightcase.com/#:~:text=livelihoods%20at%20risk...
- dbspin 2y ago
  I've read Trump vs US, including the dissent. It's frankly terrifying. Americans not caring about these issues seems indicative of the media not being fit for purpose - rather than the issues not being existential. I'd argue that the less democratic things get, the more disengaged people tend to become about the details of political and legal decisions. Since they have less influence on them and are already suffering lacks lower down the pyramid of needs. From Sotomayor's dissent "Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. "
  - NavinF 2y ago
    Yeah that's an unfortunate decision and that Sotomayor guy is a good writer, but the decision doesn't significantly affect people who live here and the dissent is not an accurate prediction of the impact. At the end of the day, congress has the power to impeach and elected law makers keep the president in check. What do you think of the case that brought down Chevron deference? That should be a lot easier for you to analyze. Ie. "NOAA fucked around and found out"
    - kmeisthax 2y ago
      So, let me put it in terms people can understand: what is there to stop Biden from having the Secret Service black-bag Trump if Harris loses in November? Or stop Trump from black-bagging whoever beats the Republican that succeeds him in 2028? Or hell, what stops Biden from droning the SCOTUS justices that wrote the majority opinion right now? According to the Supreme Court, the only appropriate venue for that question is a Congressional impeachment. The only time when it looked like a President was going to be impeached and convicted was Nixon. That's why he resigned. But I doubt that would happen today. In fact, you can blame Democrats for this: they didn't convict Clinton when he was trading sexual favors, even though that was absolutely something they should have[0]. And Republicans refused to convict Trump[1] for holding up Ukraine aid for political advantage or for inciting a riot in the Capitol building. It's like if you couldn't be convicted for beating and robbing someone because you refused to sign the guilty plea. As for Chevron deference, let us keep in mind that the alternative to Chevron is legislating from the bench. SCOTUS consistently picks the interpretation of the Constitution that assigns the most power to the judicial branch, which they have absolute control over. The ostensible check on this power is Congress writing a new law, but Congress has been hung for over a decade, which means SCOTUS gets to cowboy-code whatever they want. [0] During the Me Too era of sexual harassment revelations Democrats started realizing "oh wait, we did WHAT back then?!" and recanting [1] A president so nice we impeached him twice.