[bhups]

> Kicking the can to "elect someone else" is just as naive as claiming that this decision respects the law on the books.

But...it does respect the law on the books. Your concern seems to be that the law is bad, and that the judiciary ought to change that law. I don't think there's a lot of disagreement about the former, it's the latter that's more controversial.

From an idealistic standpoint, enacting Federal law is necessarily onerous, owing to the requirement of a strong consensus so as to prevent a marginal majority from shoving Federal laws down the throat of a large minority.

> Okay sure. But don't lose track of reality in your quest for idealism though.

Okay sure, it sounds like you don't care much for the idealistic standpoint, so let's talk pragmatism. If we can't gather this consensus at the Federal level, we have the levers of state legislatures to pass those same laws at a more local level.

Liberal states have the political will, the systems, and (if we're being frank) the majority of businesses that would be affected by Federal law anyway. They just need to have the will and pragmatism to compromise and pass their desired law at the state level until such a time that there's Federal consensus for that law.

[kup0]

Can't it be argued that SCOTUS's positions:

1. FAA is less broad than NRLA

2. NRLA does not override anything in FAA due to it being overbroad and/or things in the FAA not being "common policy"

are false, and thus the law on the books is not being respected?

#1 appears to be false and #2 is based on their erroneous position in #1. NRLA is more targeted than FAA and came 10 years post-FAA, so the argument that things covered in the FAA were not "common policy" at the time NRLA became law and thus wouldn't be overridden by NRLA seem ridiculous to me

[s73v3r_]

"But...it does respect the law on the books."

No, it absolutely does not. It completely makes up a reason why this should be considered any different than any other instance where things have changed since a law was enacted.

[bhups]

> No, it absolutely does not.

Can you explain what the law on the books currently is, and how the majority opinion "absolutely does not" respect it?

> It completely makes up a reason why this should be considered any different than any other instance where things have changed since a law was enacted.

Things have changed since a law was enacted by legislative fiat. The thesis behind those arguing the intended function of the judiciary is that any instance in the past where the judiciary has actually changed a law since it was enacted is considered abuse and not to be repeated.