3 ms·

Yes. I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best. Laws are more durable and can be counted on. Rul

Yes. I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best. Laws are more durable and can be counted on. Rule by expert sounds appealing until you realize that in the US that comes with an expiration date that is never further than 4 years out, with the results of a single nationwide election potentially triggering a complete rewrite of any and all administrative rules. You can't build anything durable on a system that fragile.

throwup238 2y ago
It's the District Court of Texas, a frequent offender. This was judge shopping, not rule of law.
- lolinder 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - throwup238 2y ago
    You literally just attacked the regulatory agency for going with "whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best." How about evaluating the agency's argument instead of automatically assuming a political appointee from the most politically divisive administration in an era where precedent is being thrown away at record pace on partisan grounds is "correct on the question of law"? "As far as you can tell" I guess.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Sorry, I seem to have miscommunicated: I'm not commenting on the rule, I actually quite like it in principle. I'm commenting on the manner in which the rules are created and their fragility. Laws passed by Congress tend to stick around and can be counted on. I want a law banning noncompetes, not a temporary administrative rule that gets added to the pile of things that could get completely upended with each and every presidential election.
      - plagiarist 2y ago
        I agree but I'd rather have either one than nothing. I'd in general rather have agencies invent rules in ways that help Americans instead of judges inventing interpretations in ways that help corporations. The courts should have the power to issue injunctions against an agency's policies but the judge shopping should not be allowed.
  - jdbdbdudhb 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - lolinder 2y ago
      I mean, insofar as it wasn't attacking a specific person, yes. But it's a generalized attack on an institution rather than that institution's legal argument. Would you accept ad cortem?
JackYoustra 2y ago
...a federal judge is a rule by expert. That's the whole point: you have to pass the bar and are insulated from feedback for life. The alternative, bureaucratic rule, is subject to democratic feedback: if people don't like it, they can vote to change it. Rule by expert sounds good until you realize that by insulating invasive systems from election cycles, you end up with a permanent opposition and a disillusioned populace who can't trace a causal path from their vote to meaningful change in their live.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > if people don't like it, they can vote to change it. Correction: if the people don't like the entire collection of administrative rules, foreign policy, and general vibes put forward by a single person (the President) they can vote to change that single person. They don't get a say on the rules themselves. Laws passed case by case by a diverse governing body elected to represent smaller groups of people are more democratic than laws penned by bureaucrats who are accountable to a single person whose election hinges on the marginal vote tallies in a half dozen states.
permo-w 2y ago
i.e. you prefer the law to never change
- CaptainFever 2y ago
  This sounds like a really bad-faith interpretation of the parent comment. What do you actually mean?
- lolinder 2y ago
  Not at all! I'd prefer that the power of the executive be stripped down to the point where neither party can accomplish any of their campaign promises without passing laws in Congress. Both parties have pivoted their entire strategy towards making presidential campaign promises, delivering them as temporary administrative rules (i.e. this from the Democrats, immigration law from the Republicans), and then frantically rallying their base to defend those rules against the possibility that they get upended in the next presidential election. It's chaos. Neuter the executive branch and the game is up: no promises get delivered on and therefore no world-ending stakes can be played up in the presidential election cycle. My hope would be that with the game ended Congress goes back to actually governing and compromising to deliver something tangible and durable to their bases.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    This is why I think the US's Presidential system is fatally flawed, and should be abolished in favor of a parliamentary system, similar to those in the two countries that the US helped set up such systems: Germany and Japan.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >Japan Sweet baby Jesus NO. Japan is literally a 1.5 party state (LDP with Komei Party latching on as yes men), and the last time the Japanese electorate decided to give the minority JDP a shot it resulted in the worst manmade nuclear disaster in post-war history and the JDP collapsing into two different and irrelevant parties (CDP and DPFP). And today the LDP party leader election stems from a leaderless leader (Kishida) failing to both lead his country (stagnant economy and policies) and manage his party (politicians from mere Parliament members to cabinet ministers engaging in literal tax evasion). All the while the Japanese electorate's sentiment is "o rly" because nobody couldn't care less who becomes the new LDP leader and thus next Japanese Prime Minister because nothing will really change. I haven't met a single Japanese voter who understands how Parliament members are elected, either. I frankly much prefer the American shithouse, at least it's fun and even makes sense (yes, including the Electoral College) once you actually study it. Context note: I'm Japanese-American.
jampekka 2y ago
> I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best. FTC (and many others) is an independent agency and not (directly) under the president's control. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  Reminder to everyone else, the President nominates agency heads, and the Senate confirms them There are some agencies I don’t want democrats running, and some agencies I don’t want republicans running. There are many of us that vote based on some agency terms ending, weighed against other things.
kergonath 2y ago
> Yes. I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best. It’s not much worse than the decision of whatever-party-got-to-appoint-a-judge-at-the-right-time. Seriously, considering the constant stream of bonkers ideological decision in various courts, including federal, who decide to ignore both law and precedent when it suits them, your faith seems to be misplaced. Rule of law works when you have a working judiciary. Unfortunately, that branch of the American government is not really in a much better state than the two others. > Laws are more durable and can be counted on. Common law is a gentleman’s agreement that courts will follow precedent. It broke down recently in several spectacular occasions, at which point no, laws cannot be counted on. > Rule by expert sounds appealing until you realize that in the US that comes with an expiration date that is never further than 4 years out, with the results of a single nationwide election potentially triggering a complete rewrite of any and all administrative rules. You can't build anything durable on a system that fragile. That’s an argument for an independent civil service, not for the end of agencies. A change in government should not mean a collapse of the administrative state or wide swings on technical policies. It’s not magic, both the UK and the US (among many others, but these two are easier to discuss from English sources) used to do it.

throwup238 2y ago

It's the District Court of Texas, a frequent offender. This was judge shopping, not rule of law.

lolinder 2y ago
[flagged]
- throwup238 2y ago
  You literally just attacked the regulatory agency for going with "whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best." How about evaluating the agency's argument instead of automatically assuming a political appointee from the most politically divisive administration in an era where precedent is being thrown away at record pace on partisan grounds is "correct on the question of law"? "As far as you can tell" I guess.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Sorry, I seem to have miscommunicated: I'm not commenting on the rule, I actually quite like it in principle. I'm commenting on the manner in which the rules are created and their fragility. Laws passed by Congress tend to stick around and can be counted on. I want a law banning noncompetes, not a temporary administrative rule that gets added to the pile of things that could get completely upended with each and every presidential election.
    - plagiarist 2y ago
      I agree but I'd rather have either one than nothing. I'd in general rather have agencies invent rules in ways that help Americans instead of judges inventing interpretations in ways that help corporations. The courts should have the power to issue injunctions against an agency's policies but the judge shopping should not be allowed.
- jdbdbdudhb 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lolinder 2y ago
    I mean, insofar as it wasn't attacking a specific person, yes. But it's a generalized attack on an institution rather than that institution's legal argument. Would you accept ad cortem?

JackYoustra 2y ago

...a federal judge is a rule by expert. That's the whole point: you have to pass the bar and are insulated from feedback for life. The alternative, bureaucratic rule, is subject to democratic feedback: if people don't like it, they can vote to change it. Rule by expert sounds good until you realize that by insulating invasive systems from election cycles, you end up with a permanent opposition and a disillusioned populace who can't trace a causal path from their vote to meaningful change in their live.

lolinder 2y ago
> if people don't like it, they can vote to change it. Correction: if the people don't like the entire collection of administrative rules, foreign policy, and general vibes put forward by a single person (the President) they can vote to change that single person. They don't get a say on the rules themselves. Laws passed case by case by a diverse governing body elected to represent smaller groups of people are more democratic than laws penned by bureaucrats who are accountable to a single person whose election hinges on the marginal vote tallies in a half dozen states.

permo-w 2y ago

i.e. you prefer the law to never change

CaptainFever 2y ago
This sounds like a really bad-faith interpretation of the parent comment. What do you actually mean?
lolinder 2y ago
Not at all! I'd prefer that the power of the executive be stripped down to the point where neither party can accomplish any of their campaign promises without passing laws in Congress. Both parties have pivoted their entire strategy towards making presidential campaign promises, delivering them as temporary administrative rules (i.e. this from the Democrats, immigration law from the Republicans), and then frantically rallying their base to defend those rules against the possibility that they get upended in the next presidential election. It's chaos. Neuter the executive branch and the game is up: no promises get delivered on and therefore no world-ending stakes can be played up in the presidential election cycle. My hope would be that with the game ended Congress goes back to actually governing and compromising to deliver something tangible and durable to their bases.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  This is why I think the US's Presidential system is fatally flawed, and should be abolished in favor of a parliamentary system, similar to those in the two countries that the US helped set up such systems: Germany and Japan.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >Japan Sweet baby Jesus NO. Japan is literally a 1.5 party state (LDP with Komei Party latching on as yes men), and the last time the Japanese electorate decided to give the minority JDP a shot it resulted in the worst manmade nuclear disaster in post-war history and the JDP collapsing into two different and irrelevant parties (CDP and DPFP). And today the LDP party leader election stems from a leaderless leader (Kishida) failing to both lead his country (stagnant economy and policies) and manage his party (politicians from mere Parliament members to cabinet ministers engaging in literal tax evasion). All the while the Japanese electorate's sentiment is "o rly" because nobody couldn't care less who becomes the new LDP leader and thus next Japanese Prime Minister because nothing will really change. I haven't met a single Japanese voter who understands how Parliament members are elected, either. I frankly much prefer the American shithouse, at least it's fun and even makes sense (yes, including the Electoral College) once you actually study it. Context note: I'm Japanese-American.

jampekka 2y ago

> I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best. FTC (and many others) is an independent agency and not (directly) under the president's control. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...

yieldcrv 2y ago
Reminder to everyone else, the President nominates agency heads, and the Senate confirms them There are some agencies I don’t want democrats running, and some agencies I don’t want republicans running. There are many of us that vote based on some agency terms ending, weighed against other things.

kergonath 2y ago

> Yes. I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best. It’s not much worse than the decision of whatever-party-got-to-appoint-a-judge-at-the-right-time. Seriously, considering the constant stream of bonkers ideological decision in various courts, including federal, who decide to ignore both law and precedent when it suits them, your faith seems to be misplaced. Rule of law works when you have a working judiciary. Unfortunately, that branch of the American government is not really in a much better state than the two others. > Laws are more durable and can be counted on. Common law is a gentleman’s agreement that courts will follow precedent. It broke down recently in several spectacular occasions, at which point no, laws cannot be counted on. > Rule by expert sounds appealing until you realize that in the US that comes with an expiration date that is never further than 4 years out, with the results of a single nationwide election potentially triggering a complete rewrite of any and all administrative rules. You can't build anything durable on a system that fragile. That’s an argument for an independent civil service, not for the end of agencies. A change in government should not mean a collapse of the administrative state or wide swings on technical policies. It’s not magic, both the UK and the US (among many others, but these two are easier to discuss from English sources) used to do it.