3 ms·

This is the part that I'm so surprised about. It turns out that people don't actually care about the law when it's inconvenient. And it turns out that people ar

This is the part that I'm so surprised about. It turns out that people don't actually care about the law when it's inconvenient. And it turns out that people are willing to accept and support crazy things: conflicted/unqualified leaders, the sacrifice of American influence and stability, the alienation of our allies, the purposeful cost-raising for American consumers. What matters most apparently is the culture war. It's clear that we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it here -- so you're welcome to the final word if you want it -- but I think the feeling that resonates with me in these conversations is "I don't care about the law or other consequences as long as I get my way." That feels bad to me. And when people making those points disagree with me on it -- this week it's justification to kill USAID and give treasury control to Musk, next week it will be the destruction of the department of education, soon it will be ignoring the 14th amendment of the constitution -- it's hard to tell if they aren't being honest with me or if they aren't being honest with themselves.

rayiner 2y ago
This is about upholding the highest law. The Framers intended the executive branch to be responsive to elections. Federalist 39 spends a lot of time analyzing the best way for people with authority in the “administration” to be appointed by the politically accountable President and confirmed by the politically accountable senate. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s39.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s.... The Constitution requires that voters must be able to effectively change government policy through the election of the president. It does not envision presidential elections as being some mere signal provided as an input to a permanent administration. That legal rule does not depend on voters’ motivations. If they want to deport all the illegal immigrants—an executive action within the discretion of the president—that’s their prerogative. How civil servants feel about that is immaterial. Voters’ cultural and policy preferences must win out. And the problem we have now is that, regardless of who wins the elections, the government remains overwhelmingly controlled by a group with particular cultural preferences. This isn’t about “law” versus “culture war.” The culture war is simply the factual context in which a legal dispute of tremendous gravity is playing out.
- selimthegrim 2y ago
  Minorities have no rights in your conception of democracy except what they can defend by force. You really think that’s the big picture take of the Federalist papers?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 2y ago
    The divergence of civil servants from the public on issues like affirmative action or immigration go to policy preferences, not rights. Individual rights are enforced primarily by courts in any event.
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      What is your take on Cruikshank and the Slaughterhouse cases?
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > The Constitution requires that voters must be able to effectively change government policy through the election of the president. Forgetting about Article I, are we?
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Using “government” here in the British sense to refer to the administration. And it’s Congress that forgot about Article I. Live by the unconstitutional delegation sword die by the unconstitutional delegation sword.
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      > Live by the unconstitutional delegation sword die by the unconstitutional delegation sword. Now that comment is just lawless — it's in the same general category as the "thinking" that led to Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, and others having to face suspension or even disbarment in multiple states. (For lurkers:) For decades, the Supreme Court held that it was constitutional for Congress to delegate authority to executive-branch agencies to deal with changing conditions — as long as the delegation was properly cabined, with administrative procedures, political accountability through presidential appointments and Senate confirmations, judicial review, etc. The "conservative" movement, though hates that "delegation doctrine"; those folks want only Congress to be able to restrict what people can do, by passing laws. According to me, for many of those folks, it's because they just can't stand having anyone tell them they can't do whatever they want (a.k.a. "You're not the boss of me!"). These soi-disant conservatives know that in the modern era, Congress is largely dysfunctional when it comes to enacting restrictive laws. So, a long-term project of crippling agency authority has been the best way for them to free themselves to do whatever TF they feel like — negative effects on the rest of us be damned. And indeed, in recent years, the "conservative" majority on the Supreme Court has been hacking away at Congress's ability to delegate. The conservatives on the Court have announced new ipse-dixit rules such as the "major questions doctrine" (MQD), in which SCOTUS purports to reserve to the judicial branch the authority to overrule agency interpretations of the law in areas that the justices regard as "major questions." (That goes back to Chief Justice John Marshall's jaw-dropping bootstrapping of judicial-review authority in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803.) Bottom line: What Rayiner seems to be saying above is this: Oh, so it's OK for Congress to delegate to agencies? Fine, then it's OK (he implies) for President Trump to go along with allowing out-of-their-depth strangers — Elon Musk and the DOGE Boys — to aggressively "disrupt" absolutely-vital functions of the national government, with no evident oversight from anyone (it's not at all clear that President Trump is paying any attention himself).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 2y ago

This is about upholding the highest law. The Framers intended the executive branch to be responsive to elections. Federalist 39 spends a lot of time analyzing the best way for people with authority in the “administration” to be appointed by the politically accountable President and confirmed by the politically accountable senate. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s39.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s.... The Constitution requires that voters must be able to effectively change government policy through the election of the president. It does not envision presidential elections as being some mere signal provided as an input to a permanent administration. That legal rule does not depend on voters’ motivations. If they want to deport all the illegal immigrants—an executive action within the discretion of the president—that’s their prerogative. How civil servants feel about that is immaterial. Voters’ cultural and policy preferences must win out. And the problem we have now is that, regardless of who wins the elections, the government remains overwhelmingly controlled by a group with particular cultural preferences. This isn’t about “law” versus “culture war.” The culture war is simply the factual context in which a legal dispute of tremendous gravity is playing out.

selimthegrim 2y ago
Minorities have no rights in your conception of democracy except what they can defend by force. You really think that’s the big picture take of the Federalist papers?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 2y ago
  The divergence of civil servants from the public on issues like affirmative action or immigration go to policy preferences, not rights. Individual rights are enforced primarily by courts in any event.
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    What is your take on Cruikshank and the Slaughterhouse cases?
dctoedt 2y ago
> The Constitution requires that voters must be able to effectively change government policy through the election of the president. Forgetting about Article I, are we?
- rayiner 2y ago
  Using “government” here in the British sense to refer to the administration. And it’s Congress that forgot about Article I. Live by the unconstitutional delegation sword die by the unconstitutional delegation sword.
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    > Live by the unconstitutional delegation sword die by the unconstitutional delegation sword. Now that comment is just lawless — it's in the same general category as the "thinking" that led to Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, and others having to face suspension or even disbarment in multiple states. (For lurkers:) For decades, the Supreme Court held that it was constitutional for Congress to delegate authority to executive-branch agencies to deal with changing conditions — as long as the delegation was properly cabined, with administrative procedures, political accountability through presidential appointments and Senate confirmations, judicial review, etc. The "conservative" movement, though hates that "delegation doctrine"; those folks want only Congress to be able to restrict what people can do, by passing laws. According to me, for many of those folks, it's because they just can't stand having anyone tell them they can't do whatever they want (a.k.a. "You're not the boss of me!"). These soi-disant conservatives know that in the modern era, Congress is largely dysfunctional when it comes to enacting restrictive laws. So, a long-term project of crippling agency authority has been the best way for them to free themselves to do whatever TF they feel like — negative effects on the rest of us be damned. And indeed, in recent years, the "conservative" majority on the Supreme Court has been hacking away at Congress's ability to delegate. The conservatives on the Court have announced new ipse-dixit rules such as the "major questions doctrine" (MQD), in which SCOTUS purports to reserve to the judicial branch the authority to overrule agency interpretations of the law in areas that the justices regard as "major questions." (That goes back to Chief Justice John Marshall's jaw-dropping bootstrapping of judicial-review authority in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803.) Bottom line: What Rayiner seems to be saying above is this: Oh, so it's OK for Congress to delegate to agencies? Fine, then it's OK (he implies) for President Trump to go along with allowing out-of-their-depth strangers — Elon Musk and the DOGE Boys — to aggressively "disrupt" absolutely-vital functions of the national government, with no evident oversight from anyone (it's not at all clear that President Trump is paying any attention himself).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]