4 ms·

> I see this as a failure of our legislative branch, they are incapable of legislating effectively and people look to the courts to achieve their desired ends.

by ant6n 2y ago

> I see this as a failure of our legislative branch, they are incapable of legislating effectively and people look to the courts to achieve their desired ends. Uh, the US has a deeply dysfunctional system. It covers most aspects of governance, judiciary, legislative, electoral system, the fifth estate. It’s entirely reasonable people are only concerned with outcomes, and not process.

NotYourLawyer 2y ago
The federal judiciary is far less dysfunctional than the other branches.
wakawaka28 2y ago
The US is not deeply dysfunctional. Some amount of friction is built in to put the brakes on any sudden outcropping of nonsense from any single element of government.
- AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
  While I agree with you in principle, that the friction is "as designed," I still say our system is broken -- even when there are things which a supermajority of people agree on, our legislators are unable to craft solutions which align which the majority of people agree with, without inserting things which are designed to cater to tiny minority special interests, which can effectively "poison pill" a bill so that nobody likes it (even if it's passed). Alternatively, we pass giant tomes of legislation (esp budgets) which literally nobody can understand let alone agree on.
  - nradov 2y ago
    What are those things on which a supermajority of people agree, including implementation details and funding sources? Everyone wants more free stuff from the government. No one wants to pay higher taxes.
  - gunapologist99 2y ago
    If a supermajority of people agree on both the purpose and implementation of anything, then their elected representatives will easily come to an agreement as well. That's literally how laws get passed. Conversely, not passing laws is a feature, not a bug. > Alternatively, we pass giant tomes of legislation (esp budgets) which literally nobody can understand let alone agree on. I agree. These massive laws are rushed through precisely because leadership knows that people won't have enough time for debate, let alone in proper order.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      So, so, so many people get caught up in information bubbles and fall victim to thinking everyone agrees with their viewpoint. This leads to the disillusionment with congress and the belief of it being "ineffective" because from their perspective, everyone is in agreement so why are these policies not being passed? No, instead the system is working as designed. When there is no consensus on a policy, the policy is not passed.
    - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
      I think you are conveniently ignoring how the Senate representation is now so widely disconnected from the demographic reality in your answer.
    - ant6n 2y ago
      > If a supermajority of people agree on both the purpose and implementation of anything, then their elected representatives will easily come to an agreement as well. That's literally how laws get passed. In a representative democratic system. The US does not have a representative democratic system.
    - Varriount 2y ago
      Does everyone in that supermajority have equal influence on their respective representatives?
    - autoexec 2y ago
      > If a supermajority of people agree on both the purpose and implementation of anything, then their elected representatives will easily come to an agreement as well. That's literally how laws get passed. That's not even close to how laws get passed. If what you say were true, then why don't we have many laws the vast majority of Americans want and have laws most Americans oppose? Americans are overwhelmingly against gerrymandering, but miraculously there's no law banning the practice. They also disapprove of overturning Roe v Wade and corporations being considered people. They support legalization of marijuana, support free college education, early voting, data privacy legislation, criminal justice reform, and a 4 day work week but again no help there.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > our legislators are unable to craft solutions which align which the majority of people agree with, without inserting things which are designed to cater to tiny minority special interests "who fund their campaigns" fits at the end, doesn't it? ref: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+are+bills+written+by+lobbyists https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+are+bills+written+by+lobbyist... Although "who kept a lucrative job waiting for them, once their term ends" works too. ref: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=revolving+door+congress&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=revolving+door+congress&ia=web
AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
I agree that we are deeply dysfunctional but it's not about "outcomes vs process" It's a very short-sighted thinking of how the process change they want to achieve their outcome today could result in someone else using that same process change for a very bad outcome in the future.
- Alupis 2y ago
  > It's a very short-sighted thinking of how the process change they want to achieve their outcome today could result in someone else using that same process change for a very bad outcome in the future. This point needs to be amplified to a near unbearable volume. Turn it up to 11, as it might be said. Discussions like packing SCOTUS to achieve "desirable" outcomes today completely ignore what the next person in office can/will do with such a precedent tomorrow. We can see this already with Executive Orders and how commonplace they have become - only for the next person in office to undo most or everything. People, in general, need to be more focused on what is best for the nation long-term, not what is best for their political party today. Unfortunately for many, it seems, the difference has become blurry or unrecognizable. So many people have become victims of believing whatever propaganda their party of choice has put out there, and become hostile to any viewpoints that do not fall inside those lines. "We'll lose our democracy if X happens or if Y is elected". How many "most important elections of our lifetime" are we going to have?
  - shigawire 2y ago
    >How many "most important elections of our lifetime" are we going to have? How many more candidates will buck precedent and try to actively overturn election results? In my estimation each election is quite consequential if at least one candidate is behaving in a way that undermines democratic norms.
  - matthewdgreen 2y ago
    The functioning of this country was based on the idea that separate branches would use their powers to balance each other. While increasing the size of the court may seem “bad” to you, it’s one of the explicit mechanisms provided by the Constitution for the Legislative and Executive branches to balance out overreach by the Judicial branch. This is the system working as intended. And in the one historical instance where we got very close to actual “court packing”, the result was not partisan warfare, but rather a detente between the branches that led to a period of political stability and prosperity unmatched in US history.

by ant6n 2y ago

NotYourLawyer 2y ago

The federal judiciary is far less dysfunctional than the other branches.

wakawaka28 2y ago

The US is not deeply dysfunctional. Some amount of friction is built in to put the brakes on any sudden outcropping of nonsense from any single element of government.

AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
While I agree with you in principle, that the friction is "as designed," I still say our system is broken -- even when there are things which a supermajority of people agree on, our legislators are unable to craft solutions which align which the majority of people agree with, without inserting things which are designed to cater to tiny minority special interests, which can effectively "poison pill" a bill so that nobody likes it (even if it's passed). Alternatively, we pass giant tomes of legislation (esp budgets) which literally nobody can understand let alone agree on.
- nradov 2y ago
  What are those things on which a supermajority of people agree, including implementation details and funding sources? Everyone wants more free stuff from the government. No one wants to pay higher taxes.
- gunapologist99 2y ago
  If a supermajority of people agree on both the purpose and implementation of anything, then their elected representatives will easily come to an agreement as well. That's literally how laws get passed. Conversely, not passing laws is a feature, not a bug. > Alternatively, we pass giant tomes of legislation (esp budgets) which literally nobody can understand let alone agree on. I agree. These massive laws are rushed through precisely because leadership knows that people won't have enough time for debate, let alone in proper order.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    So, so, so many people get caught up in information bubbles and fall victim to thinking everyone agrees with their viewpoint. This leads to the disillusionment with congress and the belief of it being "ineffective" because from their perspective, everyone is in agreement so why are these policies not being passed? No, instead the system is working as designed. When there is no consensus on a policy, the policy is not passed.
  - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
    I think you are conveniently ignoring how the Senate representation is now so widely disconnected from the demographic reality in your answer.
  - ant6n 2y ago
    > If a supermajority of people agree on both the purpose and implementation of anything, then their elected representatives will easily come to an agreement as well. That's literally how laws get passed. In a representative democratic system. The US does not have a representative democratic system.
  - Varriount 2y ago
    Does everyone in that supermajority have equal influence on their respective representatives?
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > If a supermajority of people agree on both the purpose and implementation of anything, then their elected representatives will easily come to an agreement as well. That's literally how laws get passed. That's not even close to how laws get passed. If what you say were true, then why don't we have many laws the vast majority of Americans want and have laws most Americans oppose? Americans are overwhelmingly against gerrymandering, but miraculously there's no law banning the practice. They also disapprove of overturning Roe v Wade and corporations being considered people. They support legalization of marijuana, support free college education, early voting, data privacy legislation, criminal justice reform, and a 4 day work week but again no help there.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > our legislators are unable to craft solutions which align which the majority of people agree with, without inserting things which are designed to cater to tiny minority special interests "who fund their campaigns" fits at the end, doesn't it? ref: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+are+bills+written+by+lobbyists https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+are+bills+written+by+lobbyist... Although "who kept a lucrative job waiting for them, once their term ends" works too. ref: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=revolving+door+congress&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=revolving+door+congress&ia=web

AdamJacobMuller 2y ago

I agree that we are deeply dysfunctional but it's not about "outcomes vs process" It's a very short-sighted thinking of how the process change they want to achieve their outcome today could result in someone else using that same process change for a very bad outcome in the future.

Alupis 2y ago
> It's a very short-sighted thinking of how the process change they want to achieve their outcome today could result in someone else using that same process change for a very bad outcome in the future. This point needs to be amplified to a near unbearable volume. Turn it up to 11, as it might be said. Discussions like packing SCOTUS to achieve "desirable" outcomes today completely ignore what the next person in office can/will do with such a precedent tomorrow. We can see this already with Executive Orders and how commonplace they have become - only for the next person in office to undo most or everything. People, in general, need to be more focused on what is best for the nation long-term, not what is best for their political party today. Unfortunately for many, it seems, the difference has become blurry or unrecognizable. So many people have become victims of believing whatever propaganda their party of choice has put out there, and become hostile to any viewpoints that do not fall inside those lines. "We'll lose our democracy if X happens or if Y is elected". How many "most important elections of our lifetime" are we going to have?
- shigawire 2y ago
  >How many "most important elections of our lifetime" are we going to have? How many more candidates will buck precedent and try to actively overturn election results? In my estimation each election is quite consequential if at least one candidate is behaving in a way that undermines democratic norms.
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  The functioning of this country was based on the idea that separate branches would use their powers to balance each other. While increasing the size of the court may seem “bad” to you, it’s one of the explicit mechanisms provided by the Constitution for the Legislative and Executive branches to balance out overreach by the Judicial branch. This is the system working as intended. And in the one historical instance where we got very close to actual “court packing”, the result was not partisan warfare, but rather a detente between the branches that led to a period of political stability and prosperity unmatched in US history.