4 ms·

> So the whole complaining "court strikes down something" is pointless, because the courts function as designed. The courts are judged by humans who have biase

> So the whole complaining "court strikes down something" is pointless, because the courts function as designed. The courts are judged by humans who have biases and motivated reasoning: * https://www.nycla.org/resource/blog/hon-aileen-cannon-wrote-a-really-bad-decision/ https://www.nycla.org/resource/blog/hon-aileen-cannon-wrote-... * http://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/07/cannon-dismissed-trump-classified-documents/679023/ http://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/... * https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2024/10/11/trump-appointed-federal-court-judge-undercuts-important-legal-tool-used-to-eliminate-health-care-fraud/ https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2024/10/11/trump-appointed-federa... People (judges) sometimes go into court with an pre-conceived notion of what is the 'correct' way to interpret things, and they think it is 'objective', but in fact has been shaped over time by (active) cultural forces: * http://magazine.law.nyu.edu/index.html%3Fp=7606.html http://magazine.law.nyu.edu/index.html%3Fp=7606.html

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
soco 2y ago
My point was: if there's no law about something I cannot have any expectations from courts, so why there's no law?
- triceratops 2y ago
  It's really hard to pass a non-budgetary law without a supermajority.
  - claytongulick 2y ago
    So the solution is to have the judiciary become defacto legislators?
    - triceratops 2y ago
      They're doing that right now. That's what defacto means.
      - soco 2y ago
        So the three powers system is broken? Almost "by design" one could say, although it seemed to have worked for a while, maybe when the level of sophistication was lower (but whose level?). Or maybe there was a time when the actors tried to use the system, not actively seeking tricks to abuse it?
        krapp 2y ago
        Obviously the problem here is that the judicial branch still works too well, and need to be broken like the rest of the government. Then and only then, when every branch of government at every level has so much friction that the offices themselves burn to the ground, will we be able to enjoy the freedom that God and the Founding Fathers intended. If the government that governs least governs best, then the government that governs best doesn't govern at all.
        soco 2y ago
        Which would make the founding fathers founding... nothing?
        lupusreal 2y ago
        > So the three powers system is broken? Obviously it's broken, because it's not doing what I wish it would.
        DangitBobby 2y ago
        Are you sure it's not broken because it's functionally an oligarchy?
- fwipsy 2y ago
  The Chevron doctrine, which was recently overturned by the US supreme court, stated that US courts should defer to the regulations of US agencies such as the FCC. As I understand, under Chevron, functionally, the FCC's regulations on telecommunications were law to the courts and the corporations. It seems to me that it's unreasonable to expect Congress itself to have informed, correct opinions on technically complex topics. There are a limited number of Congressmembers, most of whom are not technically skilled. Delegating regulation to domain experts who remain accountable to Congress seems like a reasonable solution. If Congress disagreed with the FCC's handling of the situation, couldn't they have made a law to overturn the FCC's decision or limit its authority? Overturning Chevron is a victory for deregulation in general. As I understand, Congress could pass laws to explicitly reinstate the authority that the FCC previously held. However, pro-deregultion factions (I assume mostly Republicans, but I don't really know) now have a chance to block that, and even the supporters of NN have other fish to fry. Essentially overturning Chevron curtailed the authority of regulatory agencies-- authority which Congress expected them to have, and could have restricted at any time--without going through Congress. Yes, it's the job of the court system to interpret laws. But when they change interpretations which other laws depend on, that's basically changing the laws themselves, isn't it?
  - soco 2y ago
    Okay thank you this answers fully my question. I guess one could make that "Chevron doctrine" into law, a one-time law, then we'd have the issue solved right? So not making laws for every single topic, just enshrine that FCC and others make "laws", then the courts would have to respect that. Of course unless they contradict other laws, thus the courts will still not run out of cases, but at least you'd have some more predictability. But if the whole system relies more on precedent cases instead of explicit laws, you can never reach that predictability (see Roe vs Wade)...
    - fwipsy 2y ago
      I don't know of any reason why they couldn't make the Chevron Doctrine law. However, I doubt that the Republican congressmembers will let it happen any time soon. Disclaimer: I'm not very informed, I just did a little Googling and then summarized it as an exercise to try to reinforce my own understanding.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

soco 2y ago

My point was: if there's no law about something I cannot have any expectations from courts, so why there's no law?

triceratops 2y ago
It's really hard to pass a non-budgetary law without a supermajority.
- claytongulick 2y ago
  So the solution is to have the judiciary become defacto legislators?
  - triceratops 2y ago
    They're doing that right now. That's what defacto means.
    - soco 2y ago
      So the three powers system is broken? Almost "by design" one could say, although it seemed to have worked for a while, maybe when the level of sophistication was lower (but whose level?). Or maybe there was a time when the actors tried to use the system, not actively seeking tricks to abuse it?
      - krapp 2y ago
        Obviously the problem here is that the judicial branch still works too well, and need to be broken like the rest of the government. Then and only then, when every branch of government at every level has so much friction that the offices themselves burn to the ground, will we be able to enjoy the freedom that God and the Founding Fathers intended. If the government that governs least governs best, then the government that governs best doesn't govern at all.
        soco 2y ago
        Which would make the founding fathers founding... nothing?
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        > So the three powers system is broken? Obviously it's broken, because it's not doing what I wish it would.
        DangitBobby 2y ago
        Are you sure it's not broken because it's functionally an oligarchy?
fwipsy 2y ago
The Chevron doctrine, which was recently overturned by the US supreme court, stated that US courts should defer to the regulations of US agencies such as the FCC. As I understand, under Chevron, functionally, the FCC's regulations on telecommunications were law to the courts and the corporations. It seems to me that it's unreasonable to expect Congress itself to have informed, correct opinions on technically complex topics. There are a limited number of Congressmembers, most of whom are not technically skilled. Delegating regulation to domain experts who remain accountable to Congress seems like a reasonable solution. If Congress disagreed with the FCC's handling of the situation, couldn't they have made a law to overturn the FCC's decision or limit its authority? Overturning Chevron is a victory for deregulation in general. As I understand, Congress could pass laws to explicitly reinstate the authority that the FCC previously held. However, pro-deregultion factions (I assume mostly Republicans, but I don't really know) now have a chance to block that, and even the supporters of NN have other fish to fry. Essentially overturning Chevron curtailed the authority of regulatory agencies-- authority which Congress expected them to have, and could have restricted at any time--without going through Congress. Yes, it's the job of the court system to interpret laws. But when they change interpretations which other laws depend on, that's basically changing the laws themselves, isn't it?
- soco 2y ago
  Okay thank you this answers fully my question. I guess one could make that "Chevron doctrine" into law, a one-time law, then we'd have the issue solved right? So not making laws for every single topic, just enshrine that FCC and others make "laws", then the courts would have to respect that. Of course unless they contradict other laws, thus the courts will still not run out of cases, but at least you'd have some more predictability. But if the whole system relies more on precedent cases instead of explicit laws, you can never reach that predictability (see Roe vs Wade)...
  - fwipsy 2y ago
    I don't know of any reason why they couldn't make the Chevron Doctrine law. However, I doubt that the Republican congressmembers will let it happen any time soon. Disclaimer: I'm not very informed, I just did a little Googling and then summarized it as an exercise to try to reinforce my own understanding.