2 ms·

> The coverage is not hyperbolic, it hits on real concerns that the courts will now be involved in every controversial decision. I don't get why that would be

by roenxi 2y ago

> The coverage is not hyperbolic, it hits on real concerns that the courts will now be involved in every controversial decision. I don't get why that would be a "concern", that is their job. The job of the courts is to settle controversial decisions. They're one of 2 institutions we have in the anglosphere democracies that are competent to do that, the other being the parliaments. There is a lot of good theory - and practice - that the executive branch should be limited by consensus. The overall results are much better for everyone. > In terms of realpolitik though, Congress is so deadlocked that new proposed legislation is unlikely to ever come Happy to report that is just pessimism - I'd expect a democracy to very quickly enact laws that everyone agrees with and then sit deadlocked forever on everything else. The situation we face in the world doesn't change very often - it is mostly repeats of things that we've seen in the past.

ethbr1 2y ago
> I'd expect a democracy to very quickly enact laws that everyone agrees with and then sit deadlocked forever on everything else. The situation we face in the world doesn't change very often - it is mostly repeats of things that we've seen in the past. I'm not sure if this is satire or not. Absent election reform, that's certainly not what you're going to get in the US, in a world with an increasing pace of change.
BadHumans 2y ago
Legislation that everyone agrees with gets shot down because one side doesn't want to make the other side look good. Republicans torpedoed a recent border bill because they didn't want to give Biden brownie points.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Do you have a reference to which bill you are talking about? I've lost all confidence in people ascribing motivations to politicians without a reference to what they've actually said.
  - BadHumans 2y ago
    I can give you the bill itself[0] and a few related pieces[1][2][3] [0] https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/murray-releases-text-of-bipartisan-national-security-supplemental https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/murray-r... [1]https://www.mediamatters.org/immigration/myths-and-facts-surrounding-bipartisan-border-deal-killed-republicans-and-right-wing https://www.mediamatters.org/immigration/myths-and-facts-sur... [2]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-republicans-block-bipartisan-border-package-scrapping-deal-they-had-demanded-from-democrats https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-republicans-blo... [3]https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-border-deal-stupid-republicans-biden-win-1234949036/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-bo...
    - roenxi 2y ago
      In your first link, the bill itself was introduced with: "As Ukraine runs low on ammunition to fend off Putin’s brutal invasion, it is imperative we finally extend our support. We must also live up to our commitments to our allies around the globe and quickly get more aid to innocent civilians caught in conflict, including in Gaza, where the humanitarian crisis is especially dire. I never believed we should link policy demands to emergency aid for our allies, but Republicans insisted—so Democrats negotiated in good faith over many weeks and now there is a bipartisan deal on border policy legislation. Ukraine’s fate and so much more hangs in the balance—it’s time for Congress to act." I don't trust that this can be represented as a border bill. The person introducing the bill seems to think it is a Ukraine (and Gaza) bill with compromises included. 80% of the money mentioned in the dot point list is going to non-border things. This tells us more about the Republican stance on foreign interventions than their feelings on borders. Also, the effort being put into calling this a "bipartisan" bill (in everything I'm reading, it seems) is highly suspect. They can't call a bill bipartisan if one side is voting against it - it clearly isn't bipartisan.
      - BadHumans 2y ago
        The bill was co-sponsored and put together by Republican and Democrat senators which is why they call it bipartisan. I agree that I would prefer the bill didn't have any riders and was just a border bill but none of the Republican complaints have to do with the aid to Ukraine so I don't think it is relevant here.
- underlipton 2y ago
  You've got a better example in your back pocket if you ever need to use it: Obamacare was previously Romneycare which was originally a Heritage Foundation spec bill. Republicans went on a decade-long campaign to dismantle a system that they wrote because a Democratic president implemented it.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    They didn't actually dismantle it though, and it seems unlikely that the bill that actually passed was an unmodified publication of the Heritage Foundation. This seems more like the Motte and Bailey disease in an election cycle. Both parties pass a bill that they both like 75% of, but then they need something to campaign on. So one party says "we're going to repeal the dastardly bill" and cites the parts of it they don't like. The other party says "they say they're going to repeal the vital bill, we have to stop them" and cites the parts of it that everybody likes. Then if the complaining party gets in they keep the parts everybody likes and maybe change some of the other parts. Never confuse what politicians say they're going to do with what they're actually going to do.
    - underlipton 2y ago
      >They didn't actually dismantle it though They weakened it considerably, and also spent a lot of time and money that could have been spent on other problems trying to repeal it altogether. >it seems unlikely that the bill that actually passed was an unmodified publication of the Heritage Foundation. I feel like it would be rather trivial to determine if the initially-proposed ACA and the HF version were substantially different. You don't have to "seems unlikely" it; go and check.

by roenxi 2y ago

ethbr1 2y ago

> I'd expect a democracy to very quickly enact laws that everyone agrees with and then sit deadlocked forever on everything else. The situation we face in the world doesn't change very often - it is mostly repeats of things that we've seen in the past. I'm not sure if this is satire or not. Absent election reform, that's certainly not what you're going to get in the US, in a world with an increasing pace of change.

BadHumans 2y ago

Legislation that everyone agrees with gets shot down because one side doesn't want to make the other side look good. Republicans torpedoed a recent border bill because they didn't want to give Biden brownie points.

roenxi 2y ago
Do you have a reference to which bill you are talking about? I've lost all confidence in people ascribing motivations to politicians without a reference to what they've actually said.
- BadHumans 2y ago
  I can give you the bill itself[0] and a few related pieces[1][2][3] [0] https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/murray-releases-text-of-bipartisan-national-security-supplemental https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/murray-r... [1]https://www.mediamatters.org/immigration/myths-and-facts-surrounding-bipartisan-border-deal-killed-republicans-and-right-wing https://www.mediamatters.org/immigration/myths-and-facts-sur... [2]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-republicans-block-bipartisan-border-package-scrapping-deal-they-had-demanded-from-democrats https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-republicans-blo... [3]https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-border-deal-stupid-republicans-biden-win-1234949036/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-bo...
  - roenxi 2y ago
    In your first link, the bill itself was introduced with: "As Ukraine runs low on ammunition to fend off Putin’s brutal invasion, it is imperative we finally extend our support. We must also live up to our commitments to our allies around the globe and quickly get more aid to innocent civilians caught in conflict, including in Gaza, where the humanitarian crisis is especially dire. I never believed we should link policy demands to emergency aid for our allies, but Republicans insisted—so Democrats negotiated in good faith over many weeks and now there is a bipartisan deal on border policy legislation. Ukraine’s fate and so much more hangs in the balance—it’s time for Congress to act." I don't trust that this can be represented as a border bill. The person introducing the bill seems to think it is a Ukraine (and Gaza) bill with compromises included. 80% of the money mentioned in the dot point list is going to non-border things. This tells us more about the Republican stance on foreign interventions than their feelings on borders. Also, the effort being put into calling this a "bipartisan" bill (in everything I'm reading, it seems) is highly suspect. They can't call a bill bipartisan if one side is voting against it - it clearly isn't bipartisan.
    - BadHumans 2y ago
      The bill was co-sponsored and put together by Republican and Democrat senators which is why they call it bipartisan. I agree that I would prefer the bill didn't have any riders and was just a border bill but none of the Republican complaints have to do with the aid to Ukraine so I don't think it is relevant here.
underlipton 2y ago
You've got a better example in your back pocket if you ever need to use it: Obamacare was previously Romneycare which was originally a Heritage Foundation spec bill. Republicans went on a decade-long campaign to dismantle a system that they wrote because a Democratic president implemented it.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  They didn't actually dismantle it though, and it seems unlikely that the bill that actually passed was an unmodified publication of the Heritage Foundation. This seems more like the Motte and Bailey disease in an election cycle. Both parties pass a bill that they both like 75% of, but then they need something to campaign on. So one party says "we're going to repeal the dastardly bill" and cites the parts of it they don't like. The other party says "they say they're going to repeal the vital bill, we have to stop them" and cites the parts of it that everybody likes. Then if the complaining party gets in they keep the parts everybody likes and maybe change some of the other parts. Never confuse what politicians say they're going to do with what they're actually going to do.
  - underlipton 2y ago
    >They didn't actually dismantle it though They weakened it considerably, and also spent a lot of time and money that could have been spent on other problems trying to repeal it altogether. >it seems unlikely that the bill that actually passed was an unmodified publication of the Heritage Foundation. I feel like it would be rather trivial to determine if the initially-proposed ACA and the HF version were substantially different. You don't have to "seems unlikely" it; go and check.