We can't have the only functional branch of government making laws they were specifically authorized to write. If you want non-competes banned you have to go directly through deadlock-as-a-service.
It's why I'm frustrated as the originalist/textualist direction of the courts where it's clear they want to massively reduce the ability of congress to delegate their authority. Because federal agencies didn't come into existence out of nowherere, they were created to solve specific problems with congress -- notably the speed of rulemaking and the lack of specific industry expertise. I genuinely don't know what they expect to happen when doing away with it and replacing it with nothing.
Letting the agencies go about their business and if they do something congress really doesn't like they have the ability to intervene is good system of agility and accountability.
Especially because states, red and blue alike, unburdened by the constitution in the same way also use this model.
If you want speed of policymaking, you can become more authoritarian a la china or have a more elitist policymaking system like some portion of european countries (see: France banning short haul flights, London congestion charge and ULEZ). I view the election of Donald trump in 2016 as a wholesale rejection of elitism in American policymaking rather than any true desire for conservative values.
> I view the election of Donald trump in 2016 as a wholesale rejection of elitism in American policymaking rather than any true desire for conservative values.
> If you want speed of policymaking, you can become more authoritarian a la china or have a more elitist policymaking system like some portion of european countries
I didn't realize the United States was an authoritarian system until just a few weeks ago. Free at last, free at last. Can you shed some light on what speeds of policymaking are definitely not authoritarian? Asking for a friend.
Having unelected, educated bureaucrats make policy like the chevron ruling permitted is definitely more elitist than having direct democracy or elected representatives make policy, which I would consider more populist. I’m not calling it bad or good, that’s just what it is, I think both elitist and populist are bad words these days
* The short haul flight ban is great, and widely supported. You don't need those flights anyway because the rail network is cheaper and better. Plus the ban has so many exceptions it's likely to not actually impede you when actually needed, most people wish it was stronger.
* The ban was passed by the Assemblée Nationale which is their congress. So I'm not sure what your point is, it wasn't unilateral.
> I genuinely don't know what they expect to happen when doing away with it and replacing it with nothing.
A golden age of value transfer to shareholders, unencumbered by communist concepts like "environmental protection" and "workplace safety".
Or at least that's what will happen for a while, until something happens, like some guy who's lost everything to his kid getting (and dying from) cancer - caused by drinking polluted water - realizing there's no real legal recourse anymore and deciding to take matters into his own hands.
But that's a simple possibility to the c-suite, not a certainty, and even if it were a certainty, it's not known if it's scheduled in the next fiscal quarter. So dump the chemicals in the waterway and get back to work.
Literally every concern can be pushed out into the unknown future, while every benefit can be quantified and added to the earnings call as a talking point.
EDIT:
You can downvote this all you want, but all of these agencies, rules, etc. are a part of a system meant to prevent and adjudicate issues that exist in society. If you remove that system, humans will come up with their own.
There's no citation, no elaboration, no intellectual discussion, no value added, no evidence that their claim is true. It's pure flamewar tangent, and like your comment, is unsuitable for HN.
It also says to not feed egregious comments by replying. So, in a way, complaining about someone not following the guidelines is itself against the guidelines. So if you were truly interested in the application of the guidelines you wouldn't mention someone wasn't following the guidelines.
The proper thing to do is to ignore the comment and let dang (or the voting system) handle it.
> It also says to not feed egregious comments by replying.
"Feeding" is overwhelmingly interpreted as "engaging with". I'm not engaging with the parent comment, I'm pointing out that they're blatantly violating the guidelines while avoiding engaging with their (non-)point.
This makes your point
> So, in a way, complaining about someone not following the guidelines is itself against the guidelines.
shaky at best, and invalid (at least according to the letter of the law) at worst.
I agree that the discourse would also be degraded if comment threads were filled with commentators constantly pointing out every little violation of the guidelines, which is why I try to avoid that, and downvote/flag/contact dang, but in egregious cases I believe that occasionally pointing out the trespass is valuable as a complement to those, because it explicitly reinforces the point that this kind of behavior is unwelcome and against the rules - a mere down voted/flagged submission may lead people (especially those from Reddit) to think that they're just being disagreed with.
(and, the difference between "people don't agree with my opinion" and "this behavior isn't appropriate" is that in the latter case people change their behavior or leave, while in the former case they keep their bad behavior but only let it out when they think they'll be agreed with, which further degrades discourse)
Is there any binding law that prevents any organization from bribing the Supreme Court into making favorable rulings? Shouldn’t the default assumption be that recommended judges are friendly to their influence?
The plain fact that the Supreme Court has record low level trust as an institution makes any important ruling that reaches their court something of an exercise in anxiety. I think that’s worthy of discussion and I don’t think the original comment was inflammatory. Just my own opinion.
> Is there any binding law that prevents any organization from bribing the Supreme Court into making favorable rulings?
There is not. SCOTUS justices can, and do, openly and privately accept bribes. The Supreme Court could make its own rules against bribery and enforce them, but it explicitly chose not to[1].
There is currently an effort to pass a law to require SCOTUS to have an ethics policy[2]. However, the party proposing it does not have enough power to enact it. It's up to voters now.
[1] Notice all of the rules in their recently released Code of Conduct use "should," not "must." There is also no enforcement mechanism. This "Code of Conduct" is functionally functionally equivalent to having no Code. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justi...
[2] "Binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court: Congress should pass binding, enforceable conduct and ethics rules that require Justices to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Supreme Court Justices should not be exempt from the enforceable code of conduct that applies to every other federal judge." https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
It's better to start an important discussion with a substantive comment than a quippy name-drop.
There's definitely an interesting discussion to be had about the lack of Supreme Court ethics guidelines and enforcement, bad faith judges, lobbyist influences on judges, etc.
But building that discussion on a flamebait parent post isn't the strongest foundation.
