4 ms·

>As is so often the case for controversies before the Supreme Court, this case isn't so much about glyphosate as it is about the interface between federal and s

>As is so often the case for controversies before the Supreme Court, this case isn't so much about glyphosate as it is about the interface between federal and state law. It was mentioned on a podcast recently that in many cases, the SC is not making a decision on what should/shouldn't happen/be the policy/is correct or whatever. They are deciding which layer of government gets to decide a given question. The Executive Branch? Legislation? Constitution? Who is the controlling entity? Now, in a practical sense, by the time it gets to the SC, making a decision on who gets to decide, is, functionally, picking what the outcome is, since the various layers of government have already made their positions clear. But the upshot is, if one is upset with what happens with a given policy after a SC decision, in many cases (although not all), the proper target of one's ire should not be the SC; since what they are usually saying is something like "this is something that is controlled by statute. If the statute is dumb/bad/poorly written, that is not our fault nor within our control, take it up with Congress to rewrite the statue", and instead one should be upset with whoever the controlling entity is for doing a bad job (in recent years: most commonly congress, not so much for doing a bad job so much as not doing any job)

coolkewlcuil 5mo ago
[flagged]
- gzread 5mo ago
  IMO SCOTUS should retain the power to interpret vagaries of law; Congress still holds ultimate power, as it can pass a more specific law overriding their interpretation. What about striking down unconstitutional laws, though? That has to be up to SCOTUS, nobody else can do it.
  - coolkewlcuil 5mo ago
    SCOTUS granted itself that power. Their originalist powers are extremely limited. So do not listen to justices that claim to be "originalist". SCOTUS authority to strike laws is self dealing and not at all an originalist power. The original expectation was the public would demand such change via elections every 2-6 years and remove the corrupted Senator or Representative. SCOTUS is not supposed to have power over theoretical cases yet it operates on concepts all the time. Just another way in which the system is rigged; the appeals of originalists who have clearly read the words, they're plain English, are just more self dealing power away from the public to the elites
    - malfist 5mo ago
      This is just not true. Yes the SCOTUS ruled that it had the right to judicial review, because that's what the constitution said it had the power to do. This isn't "granting itself that power" anymore than Congress granted itself the power to pass laws or the president granting themselves the power to execute laws.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > 3 equal branches is modern propaganda It's not propaganda. It's a legal and historical theory that found popular purchase. The word propaganda has a meaning, and we're in a point in history where ensuring it retains that meaning is more important than in any other time in my life.
  - coolkewlcuil 5mo ago
    Definition of language is not up to you but society in the aggregate. You can claim as you wish while I and others can do the same. If you're saying we need to hold to beliefs of the past, that's a position that physical reality makes untenable. See you in church? That was the center of communal life for the majority for centuries. Anyone that's abandoned such agency has engaged in abandonment of history, of norms others can just as easily (and do) claim are more important than ever. You can make whatever claims you want rhetorically but the non-fractal reality we live in does not allow for the strict conservatism you appeal for. Entropy gives rise to generational churn which gives rise to shifting social values. These corny appeals to history you never directly experienced are little more than parroting grammatically correct statements you were taught.
    - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
      > Definition of language is not up to you but society in the aggregate Sure. The definition of propaganda OP uses is an internet niche one to mean any broadly-held (and thus disseminated) theory one disagrees with. The argument against co-equal branches is a legitimate one. Calling the theory propaganda cheapens a real argument by making it look childish.
      - coolkewlcuil 5mo ago
        propaganda /prŏp″ə-găn′də/ noun The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. ...my use seems to fit the definition to me. You are applying personal emotional bias to a very plain stated definition.

coolkewlcuil 5mo ago

[flagged]

gzread 5mo ago
IMO SCOTUS should retain the power to interpret vagaries of law; Congress still holds ultimate power, as it can pass a more specific law overriding their interpretation. What about striking down unconstitutional laws, though? That has to be up to SCOTUS, nobody else can do it.
- coolkewlcuil 5mo ago
  SCOTUS granted itself that power. Their originalist powers are extremely limited. So do not listen to justices that claim to be "originalist". SCOTUS authority to strike laws is self dealing and not at all an originalist power. The original expectation was the public would demand such change via elections every 2-6 years and remove the corrupted Senator or Representative. SCOTUS is not supposed to have power over theoretical cases yet it operates on concepts all the time. Just another way in which the system is rigged; the appeals of originalists who have clearly read the words, they're plain English, are just more self dealing power away from the public to the elites
  - malfist 5mo ago
    This is just not true. Yes the SCOTUS ruled that it had the right to judicial review, because that's what the constitution said it had the power to do. This isn't "granting itself that power" anymore than Congress granted itself the power to pass laws or the president granting themselves the power to execute laws.
JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> 3 equal branches is modern propaganda It's not propaganda. It's a legal and historical theory that found popular purchase. The word propaganda has a meaning, and we're in a point in history where ensuring it retains that meaning is more important than in any other time in my life.
- coolkewlcuil 5mo ago
  Definition of language is not up to you but society in the aggregate. You can claim as you wish while I and others can do the same. If you're saying we need to hold to beliefs of the past, that's a position that physical reality makes untenable. See you in church? That was the center of communal life for the majority for centuries. Anyone that's abandoned such agency has engaged in abandonment of history, of norms others can just as easily (and do) claim are more important than ever. You can make whatever claims you want rhetorically but the non-fractal reality we live in does not allow for the strict conservatism you appeal for. Entropy gives rise to generational churn which gives rise to shifting social values. These corny appeals to history you never directly experienced are little more than parroting grammatically correct statements you were taught.
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > Definition of language is not up to you but society in the aggregate Sure. The definition of propaganda OP uses is an internet niche one to mean any broadly-held (and thus disseminated) theory one disagrees with. The argument against co-equal branches is a legitimate one. Calling the theory propaganda cheapens a real argument by making it look childish.
    - coolkewlcuil 5mo ago
      propaganda /prŏp″ə-găn′də/ noun The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. ...my use seems to fit the definition to me. You are applying personal emotional bias to a very plain stated definition.