dctoedt

22 ms·

361.
Beneath offshore [Danish] wind turbines, researchers [farm] seafood and seaweed(apnews.com)
3 points by dctoedt 2y ago|0 comments
362.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> If Congress started adding clauses to legislation to the tune of "this law is not subject to judicial review", the judiciary is fully within it's [sic] rights as outlined by the Constitution to strike down the law I&
363.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> Congress should be willing to write it into law (or amend the Constitution?) That'd be the preferred solution, but given the existing incentives, it's almost certainly not going to happen. It's a version of the install
364.
by dctoedt 2y ago
It's a spectrum, not a binary choice.
365.
by dctoedt 2y ago
Yes, and what exactly is "the judicial Power"? Roberts, C.J., famously said that it was that of an umpire calling balls and strikes. As a far-fetched analogy, Chevron deference is a bit like having a committee of uninvolved pl
366.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> If the legislature are not experts - and they're not on many many topics - they need to either a) find those experts for advice or b) keep their hands out of it. The way our system is set up, they generally don't have time
367.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> I find it strange how so many people are upset that the Supreme Court is forcing Congress to do its job, which is pass laws. That's the Assume a Can Opener fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assume_a_can
368.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> Or is the idea that its impossible to anticipate all possible edge cases and congress wants to let the agency iron out future issue? This Plus, it's often a case of Congress kicking the can down the road: Enough votes in Congres
369.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> judges will focus on their expertise—interpreting what the laws mean. And agency experts will focus on their expertise—applying that law to specific factual scenarios. It's not always that simple: Sometimes, trying to interpret
370.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> If that party can win elections by doing that, that’s what should happen. “Expertise” carries zero weight in a democracy other than its ability to persuade voters. That's a pretty idealized view: The vast majority of voters just
371.
by dctoedt 2y ago
Time for Congress to start aggressively using its express constitutional power (under the Exceptions and Regulations Clause of Article III) to circumscribe federal courts' power to set aside congressional directives such as the ones th
372.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> separation of powers issues ... in the background Under the Exceptions and Regulations Clause in Article III, every federal court exercises its power at the sufferance of Congress (apart from cases under SCOTUS's original jurisd
373.
by dctoedt 2y ago
Serious question: Suppose the statute were rewritten to say, you can't do public offerings [etc.] in commerce without agreeing to submit to the SEC's adjudicatory process and waiving your right to a jury trial — you don't ha
374.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> I’ve always wanted to use WordPerfect 5.1 I was sorry to move off of WP5.1 for DOS when Windows became "the standard"; WP for Windows just wasn't the same, nor was Microsoft Word for Windows (which we switched to in an
375.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> We should’ve done that during the Warren court and stripped the Court of jurisdiction to challenge law on social and moral issues. Without the Warren Court's decisions in Brown v. Board or Cooper v. Aaron ("separate but
376.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> I’m not sure Congress can regulate the Supreme Court’s voting rules For its internal purposes the Court can certainly make any voting rules it wants. But I'd submit that Congress has the power (under the Exceptions and Regulat
377.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> I wonder if there will ever be a challenge to Marbury v. Madison. An excellent question. Marbury isn't itself so much a problem as how courts — and the All-Writs Act — have implemented the basic principle. But people have gone
378.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> Certainly Congress has the power to strip jurisdiction from the court for anything that isn't covered by Article III. You don't need the "for anything ...." part of your sentence: The Exceptions and Regulations Cl
379.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> Who says the term "fundamental freedom" doesn't include the right not to be enslaved based on your skin color? EDIT (it's too late to revise the post above): Obviously, it should be, "Who says the term '
380.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> Human rights” just rhymes with “exercise of power.” Ultimately, yeah.
381.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> Who says the right to bodily autonomy is the most “fundamental freedom?” Let's extend that line of argument: Who says the term "fundamental freedom" doesn't include the right not to be enslaved based on your skin
382.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> Finding new constitutional rules in “emanations from penumbras” seems extremely over that line There's a difference between "finding new constitutional rules," on the one hand, versus recognizing the logical implicatio
383.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> The fundamental unit of democracy is the polity, not the individual. Democracy is neutral as to religion The implication being, each of us must govern our life by whatever "the polity" decides — sounds pretty authoritarian.
384.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> really just a way of imposing a particular quasi-religious worldview onto the democratic majority. That's a fun-house mirror perspective: Nowadays, what you think of as "the democratic majority" seems to want to impo
385.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> Those are all conditions that exist in the current state of the world, so clearly US hegemony doesn't prevent them. By that reasoning, murder, robbery, etc., all exist everywhere, so clearly the existence of police forces doesn&
386.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> Americans of all people should understand that people are willing to suffer worse material conditions for the sake of freedom. "Freedom" — to be ruled by armed gangs battling for territory (Haiti, Sudan)? To be imprisoned o
387.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> Is this one of those generational things like "on accident" vs. "by accident" "On accident": Abomination! Kill it with fire, now! </OldFartRant>
388.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> If Europe wants to check Russian expansion, they can do that. But it’s none of America's business. Neither Russia nor China seems willing play by the rules of a rules-based international order. OK, fine, that puts us into power
389.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> Legal analyses, law review articles, customary practice, etc. all /influence/ courts. Correct. As a general rule: - When the "black-letter law" dictates a result (that is, a statute or binding precedent), a judge
390.
by dctoedt 2y ago
> will probably live to see you completely lose your global hegemony and your fantasies of power become nothing more than embarrassing, self-castrating nostalgia And then you'll enjoy more experiences of aggressively-expansionist

More ›