2 ms·
If you look at who we elect and how there is no reason to believe they will every be capable of drafting laws on complex subject matter nor revising them to kee
by michaelmrose 2y ago
If you look at who we elect and how there is no reason to believe they will every be capable of drafting laws on complex subject matter nor revising them to keep up with the times.
Adopting a strategy that wouldn't have worked in 1980 and probably wont work in 2080 unless the country is literally torn down and rebuilt from the ground up doesn't seem like an effective strategy. The supreme court has never just been a cold arbiter of law and they certainly aren't acting thus now. The intention isn't for congress to do their job the purpose is to gut regulation so that the parties who hired the justices by proxy can profit.
- ndriscoll 2y agoI don't see why experts in agencies can't take the regulations they write up and send that to Congress to vote on. I find the "Congress can't do this" excuse to be rather weak. If they wanted to defer their authority, I'm sure they'd have no issue rubber stamping things. If regulations can't get through in that system, I guess Congress doesn't agree with that deference.
- michaelmrose 2y agoAny regulation with meaningful effect is going to cost the people who ultimately pay to keep individual congresspeople in office. These folks in fact often spend greater than half their time fundraising not legislating or in many cases are replaced by people who will. Because of the construction of our system your desired legislation can be stymmied by lawmakers representing barely half of states represention 25% of the population so ultimately 13% of us. Worse any meaningful parts are liable to be horse traded away for more vital concerns which are almost always going to be either a crisis or immediate budgetary matters. See the last 40 years. Imagine your cow died decades ago and you were still milking its bones.