[mattzito]

Except that the role of the CMS, as established by congress, is to set the guidelines of care and standards of participation for providers who opt to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients.

They set rules for everything from how many hospitals can be owned by a single entity, to what sorts of qualifications are required for hospital administrators, to what types of medical orders are allowed to be given to patients. Their explicit charter is to ensure Medicare and medicaid patients are cared for and their health is looked after. From that lens, requiring a vaccination that reduces the likelihood that one of those patients is infected with a potentially deadly disease (particularly deadly for those on Medicare, given the demo), is eminently reasonable.

And the administrator is confirmed by congress. If this regulation was about almost anything else, this would be a nothingburger

[bko]

> to what types of medical orders are allowed to be given to patients

Suppose an anti-abortion president gets elected and he elects someone as head and tells them that health care providers that accept medicare or medicaid cannot provide abortions. Not making it illegal per-se, but just for the providers that accept medicare or medicaid for any of their services.

You okay with this as well?

[DSMan195276]

The problem I see with this kind of argument is that whether a health care provider provides abortion services has very little (nothing) to do with the care given to a medicaid or medicare patients. Where-as them being vaccinated for COVID does have a very clear impact on medicaid/medicare patients, especially since medicare patients are more likely to be in a high risk group (IE: old).

It seems to me like you just don't think medicare or medicaid should be a thing to begin with. I think it's basic sense that if we're paying for medicare and medicaid we should require the healthcare providers receiving our tax dollars to meet some standard level of care, or else we're just wasting our money. We can argue over what that level of care should be, but I don't think it's all that debatable that requiring things like vaccines could fall into that level of care if not having them is particularly risky for patients.

[bko]

> The problem I see with this kind of argument is that whether a health care provider provides abortion services has very little (nothing) to do with the care given to a medicaid or medicare patients.

There's no mechanism to enforce this reasoning. It's whether the agency has the power to do it or not. For instance it could be argued that natural immunity is far superior to vaccines, so excluding healthcare workers with natural immunity from working is not about protecting patients.

> It seems to me like you just don't think medicare or medicaid should be a thing to begin with.

???

[DSMan195276]

> There's no mechanism to enforce this reasoning. It's whether the agency has the power to do it or not. For instance it could be argued that natural immunity is far superior to vaccines, so excluding healthcare workers with natural immunity from working is not about protecting patients.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Congress gave the agency the power to set guidelines for requirements for caring for medicaid/medicare patients, that's what they do. If a guideline would not actually impact medicaid/medicare patients, then they can't do it and it would rightfully get struck down in court when it is challenged for not falling within their powers. That's quite literally the same mechanism currently being used to challenge their power to require vaccines.

Your point about natural immunity seems reasonable, it doesn't mean requiring vaccines for those without natural immunity wouldn't still make sense though so I don't think it really fits your point. Claiming that the particular way they went about this requirement is bad is different from saying they can't require a vaccine at all. I think your point makes some sense, but it could still be paired with a vaccine requirement making it effectively the same thing.

> ???

I thought what I said was pretty self explanatory. If Medicare and Medicaid are going to be worth it then we have to have some standard level of care that we're paying for - we shouldn't be paying tons of money just for medicare/medicaid patients to receive bad care. Why should my tax dollars to go a healthcare provider who doesn't want to get the vaccine when that money can go to one who will? The medicare/medicaid patients that we're paying for will get better treatment from those healthcare providers who require vaccination, and if better care is not the goal than what is?

[bko]

>> It seems to me like you just don't think medicare or medicaid should be a thing to begin with.

Please don't ascribe beliefs or intentions to me that I didn't explicitly state.

> Why should my tax dollars to go a healthcare provider who doesn't want to get the vaccine when that money can go to one who will?

Medicare and Medicaid should be fee for treatment. Why shouldn't I be allowed to choose what provider I want to visit for the same treatment? They can have different covid policies, much like schools do. I don't think it should be a federal issue.

> The medicare/medicaid patients that we're paying for will get better treatment from those healthcare providers who require vaccination, and if better care is not the goal than what is?

You're mistaking treatment for safety protocols. A health care provider can have a certain doctor to nurse ratio or a million other things and they may not all be "optimal" as defined by the powers that be. We should allow people to choose what health care provider is right for them based on their constraints and not restrict options.

[kelnos]

> We should allow people to choose what health care provider is right for them based on their constraints and not restrict options.

Disagree. If I'm footing the bill for that care (as a taxpayer) I expect to have a say in what constitutes minimum quality of care.

And allowing unvaccinated healthcare workers to treat patients is reckless, and falls well below that minimum quality bar.

(I would also accept healthcare workers with natural immunity, assuming we can establish some sort of testable minimum antibody level that confers a similar level of protection as a vaccine.)

[DSMan195276]

> Why shouldn't I be allowed to choose what provider I want to visit for the same treatment? They can have different covid policies, much like schools do. I don't think it should be a federal issue.

You can, by paying for it yourself :P

> You're mistaking treatment for safety protocols. A health care provider can have a certain doctor to nurse ratio or a million other things and they may not all be "optimal" as defined by the powers that be. We should allow people to choose what health care provider is right for them based on their constraints and not restrict options.

I see what you're saying but I think it's an odd distinction, treatment outcomes and safety protocols are clearly linked, why should tax dollars go to treatment provided with substandard safety protocols when the same can be spent for better treatment elsewhere? Functionally it would just end up costing us and the program more over time and lead to worse outcomes. The other issue here is that most patients aren't even going to know enough about the various things you listed to make an informed opinion about them.

[nickgros]

> There's no mechanism to enforce this reasoning.

The mechanism would be the judicial system, and in the case of restricting abortion services, the regulation would probably be subject to strict scrutiny.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

[Beldin]

> For instance it could be argued that natural immunity is far superior to vaccines

Lots of things could be argued; some things shouldn't be argued without evidence.

During a pandemic, statements that will be interpreted as suggesting that catching the disease beats vaccination fall squarely in that category.

[lukeschlather]

"it could be argued" is not a substitute for the judgement of the regulatory body. The regulatory body hears arguments and makes a determination, I'm pretty sure that's the mechanism. (And it sounds like the court has decided to overrule it on shaky grounds.)

[SkyPuncher]

The person you're replying to has a slightly incorrect statement. At least to my knowledge.

CMS only controls this for patients covered by Medicaid/Medicare. It can set the tone for the entire industry, but does not solely control the industry. Typically, they create influence by setting/rejecting Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement standards. Since enough patients are covered by CMS, it tends to be easier for hospitals to broadly adopt the policies.

[mattzito]

It might be a difference without a distinction, but technically the provider is participating, non-participating, or opt-out. In the first two cases, the provider has to meet those standards, and while I'm sure that there might be deltas between how medicare/medicaid patients and non- are covered (e.g. minimum post-procedure length of stays), all of the requirements around the provider apply to everyone at the provider. That is, you can't have one hospital administrator with a degree for the medicaid people and one without for not - the hospital administrators, full stop, have to have the appropriate degrees and certifications.

[beerandt]

No- they say play by our rules for everyone or the majority of your revenue disappears.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Suppose an anti-abortion president gets elected and he elects someone as head and tells them that health care providers that accept medicare or medicaid cannot provide abortions

Not comparable. Based on current law, abortion is a Constitutionally-protected right. Based on precedent from the Spanish-flu era, the government has broad public health powers.

All that said, as someone who isn’t a fan of how much power Congress has ceded to the executive through administrative powers (which delegate legislative powers to the executive through rulemaking), I wouldn’t mind seeing those curtailed.

[claytongulick]

You should probably read the Jacobson decision more carefully [1], since you believe that it grants the government the right to mandate vaccines.

The decision is much more narrow that you've been led to believe.

It specifically addresses state police powers, not federal powers.

It also doesn't mandate vaccination, it allows a small fine to be paid instead.

Also, according to a well known attorney I consulted (who has argued several cases before the Supreme Court) the Jacobson decision has been overturned countless times and is considered an awful ruling, the Healthcare equivalent of Dred Scott.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

[JumpCrisscross]

> since you believe that it grants the government the right to mandate vaccines

Specifically avoided saying that. Stated simply, my point is there is positive precedent to the precursors to vaccine mandates, and reasonable ambiguity to the question per se. There is clear negative precedent for abortion. As such, comparing them is misleading. (Better analogy may be found in gun rights.)

[kelnos]

I'm not ok with it, but would be forced to accept that it is within the authority granted to the agency to make that call.

Assuming it is: I think policy measures like that should be subject to medical needs. I think there's a clear medical need to require COVID vaccinations for healthcare workers, but banning abortions doesn't pass that test.

And hell, didn't the Trump administration actually do this, though maybe through different means? Withholding federal funding from providers who offer abortions?

[mattzito]

No, of course not, but that's not what I was referring to - I was referring to, are doctors allowed to leave standing orders for patients? Can they give them over the phone? What kind of procedures can nurses and NPs order? Those sorts of things.

Your example is a covered procedure, some of which is defined by the CMS, but much of it is defined by federal statute that dictates what classes of procedure are covered by medicaid/medicare. To go to your example specifically, federal statute ALREADY limits medicaid abortion coverage to abortions arising from rape, incest, or that put the health of the mother at risk. 16 states go beyond that and cover abortion in more cases, but they pay for that with their own money (which is also allowed statutorily). So in your case, what the new CMS head was declaring is unlawful on its face, as this is something that congress has specifically addressed.

[adrr]

Banning health care providers from abortion would be unconstitutional. It would be the same as a president banning health care providers from serving muslims. Women have a constitutional right to get an abortion. People don't have a constitutional right to not vaccinate. Government can and has jailed and/or fined people for not getting a vaccine. These SCOTUS approved mandates helped rid America of smallpox.

[willcipriano]

Ehh constructional right is a bit strong.

The supreme court ruled that the 14th amendment[0], has somewhere hidden within it a right to privacy. This right to privacy appearently applies exclusively to abortion, as warrentless wiretapping of every US citizen has been determined not to be a constitutional violation.

I find it funny that they can find a right to privacy in the 14th, but give the thumbs up to civil asset forfeiture that directly contradicts the text and is a obvious violation. They seem to make things up as they go along depending on what is politically expedient.

[0]https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

[bbatha]

The right to privacy is in the 4th amendment, the 14th amendment is used to "incorporate" constitutional rights to the states. Prior to the 14th amendment the rights in the constitution only prevent abridgement of rights by the federal government but states were free to take them away.

[cies]

> Banning health care providers from abortion would be unconstitutional.

Forcing care workers to take a medicine against their will is constitutional you say?

All medical procedures should be voluntary, or we go back to the times of lobotomy and forced sterilizations of minorities (and that's not as many decades back as you may think).

> Government can and has jailed and/or fined people for not getting a vaccine.

This means being unvaxed is a something only the rich can afford. Pay fines, and have a good lawyer.

[Isthatablackgsd]

> Forcing care workers to take a medicine against their will is constitutional you say?

They are not forced to take the medicine. They are given an choice to take the vaccine or find another job. If they refused to take the vaccine, that is their choice, period. They cannot claimed they are being forced because they are given an choice in the first place. They are given a free will with their decision. Thousands of Thousands people screeching for being forced when they are given a choice. Society don’t have to conform to those people who want to endanger their people and their livelihood.

[refurb]

This is an incredibly weak argument and the courts have already ruled similar issues.

The government can’t violate your right to free speech. They also can’t “ask” a private company to censor you as it effectively the same thing.

Telling someone “its your choice but if you don’t do it you’ll lose your livelihood” is not a choice at all.

[cmh89]

Choices have consequences. I have the choice to stop wearing clothes to my job and the consequence of that choice is that my job would fire me.

The ability of the government to establish vaccination requirements is long established. It's only becoming a hot topic now because anti-science folks have been programmed to fear a safe and effective vaccine.

[kelnos]

You're aware that we've had vaccine mandates for decades, right? Were you also upset about requiring kids get (for example) MMR vaccines before allowing them to attend public school? If so, then congratulations: some diseases we'd thought we'd eradicated have been coming back because of anti-vax nutjobs.

You are not an island. You live in a society, a community of people that requires individuals to give up some personal liberties for the good of the whole. Those who don't like that should go move to an isolated island where their harm to others can be limited.

[adrr]

Greater good of society out weighs people's individual rights. These are basic constitutional tenets. Why you can't yell fire in a crowded theater even though you have the right to free speech. Why the SCOTUS has ruled vaccine mandates are constitutional.

[coredog64]

Schenk was overturned because it was a bad decision. In general, “fire in a crowded theater” is my heuristic for “this person doesn’t know what they’re talking about”.

This is the top Google result for “fire in a crowded theater”: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

[adrr]

Use the more modern version it and yell “I have a bomb”.

[refurb]

You actually can yell fire in a crowded theatre and no, the the US doesn’t automatically weigh the “greater good” over individual rights.

[tastyfreeze]

Society is a cultural framework and does not in any way supercede individual rights. There is no greater good. The SCOTUS has ruled that states have the authority to mandate vaccination not the federal government. The federal government is extremely limitited in its authority by the Constitution.

[claytongulick]

"Greater good" has been the justification for the worst atrocities committed in history.

Be careful about so willingly giving up your right to self-ownership.

You may not ever get it back.

[adrr]

Greater good is what it makes it possible to have individual rights. Imagine if you had an absolute right to free speech. You could write or speak anything without legal recourse. Trademark law and copyright law wouldn’t work. Fraud wouldn’t be prosecutable.

Apply that to other rights like the right to bear arms. If government couldn’t set standards and people could procure any weapon, how does society function? How does air travel even exist with people owning anti aircraft missiles.

That’s why our founders made our constitution a living document with courts interpreting the constitution and balancing individual rights with our collective rights.

[odessacubbage]

you can indeed yell fire in a crowded theater.

[Chris2048]

Then just ban men from having them as well.

> Women have a constitutional right to get an abortion.

Do they? Where is that written?

EDIT: the vague "life, liberty, or property" clause as interpreted by Roe vs Wade. This is such a blank-cheque it may as well not be in the constitution as in hands all power to the interpretation of the courts.

[adrr]

" the vague "life, liberty, or property" clause as interpreted by Roe vs Wade. This is such a blank-cheque it may as well not be in the constitution as in hands all power to the interpretation of the courts."

If you read federalist papers or any of the writings of founders on the constitution. The constitution is a living document that is decided by the courts. It is really hard to have a fruitful debate without people having even basic knowledge on this subject.

[refurb]

No, it’s not a living document open to the whims of interpretation or flavor of the month.

That’s how you end up with Russia taking over Odessa due to “national security” reasons.

If it’s a living document it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.

[Chris2048]

I didn't say the courts couldn't interpret the constitution, but "living document" doesn't need to imply vague - RvW carved out a limited clarification without supplying a general rule of what is and isn't covered. The courts shouldn't have the power to totally skewer the constitution, ad-hoc.

> having even basic knowledge on this subject

That's your opinion. People debate in echo chambers all the time, if that's what you'd prefer.

[adrr]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

[teeray]

Sure, that’s the loophole. What’s happening here is yet another end-run around the democratic process. People are tired of emergency powers, executive orders, and delegated authority being used to enact some of the most impactful laws of our time. We want the Schoolhouse Rock version of law-making because we at least get something of a say in it.

[clukic]

Should Congress also pass laws regarding which vaccines are mandated for military personal serving in which areas of the world? For example, if the risk of yellow fever increases in Yemen, should Congress pass a law requiring special forces deployed in that area must acquire the vaccine? Or should that decision be left to the appointed heads of those branches of the military?

https://usarmybasic.com/about-the-army/army-shots

[redblacktree]

Congress has delegated the authority to make these decisions to regulatory agencies. If congress wants that authority back, they can get it back via legislation. The responsibility for the current situation starts and stops with congress. The executive branch is doing what congress has asked it to do, and the executive branch would stop doing those things the moment that congress legislated the authority back to themselves.

[crazy1van]

> Congress has delegated the authority to make these decisions to regulatory agencies

Yes, but at some point there must be a limit to how much power they can delegate. If Congress created a new Super-Congress that it granted all the powers of Congress, I would contend that would be unconstitutional. It clearly goes against the founding principles of having three branches of government. That would be akin to the government creating a fourth branch without amending the constitution.

Amending the constitution is a process that is clearly defined by the constitution. If that process isn't needed to create a fourth branch of government, a change that changes the core of the constitution, what would it ever be needed for and why would they have included it?

[redblacktree]

It would be up to the judicial branch to make those determinations. So far, they are broadly OK with the delegation that has happened.

[betwixthewires]

...except for the delegation of power to mandate vaccines apparently, which is the focus of this discussion.

If we are going to talk about what's the right answer from a position of "if the court says it that's how it goes" then I can assume you're happy with this court decision?

[redblacktree]

Yes, I'm happy with it from a "balance of power" perspective. I would like a different outcome, regarding vaccine mandates, but that responsibility lies with congress, and unfortunately one of our political parties is anti-science and anti-vaccine, which means it won't happen.

Still, I'm happy that we're not breaking the rules for the convenience of getting an outcome I'd like better.

[bingohbangoh]

Does the CDC have regulatory mandates to ensure vaccination? Does this extend to "get vaccinated or get fired?"

People very broadly give power to the CDC that I don't think they have.

[javagram]

Why are you mentioning the CDC?

Do you know that the two federal mandates were issued by CMS and by OSHA, two completely different organizations from the CDC?

BTW, the law as written gives very broad powers to OSHA and other agencies. This is controversial mainly because one political side in the country is anti vaccine right now.

[kansface]

Bodily autonomy is perhaps the central tenant of liberty. There is plenty of room to be for vaccines and against (federal) mandates.

[javagram]

Why reference federal mandates if your argument is bodily autonomy? That would equally apply to state and corporate mandates.

[bingohbangoh]

Ok, then CMS or OSHA.

My point still stands. Vaccine enforcement and mandates was not even considered as under their purview. It's quite hair-splitting to say "there's nothing that says they _can't start enforcing vaccine mandates_."

[javagram]

“Vaccine enforcement and mandates was not even considered as under their purview.”

Even if the law as written allowed it? Since the OSHA act and Social security acts that give OSHA and CMS regulatory authority passed, the USA has never faced a deadly virus pandemic that could be combated with a vaccine.

If Congress specifically wrote the law to allow flexibility for new situations it doesn’t make sense to me to argue that because the situation didn’t arise in the 20th century that the authority and law has lost its power.

[roamerz]

Except this isn’t about almost anything else. This is about control over one’s body.

This is from someone who chose freely to get the vaccine. Even at my own peril I support other’s freedom to choose.

[belltaco]

These are healthcare workers. Jobs have requirements. They're free to quit instead of increasing the dangers of disease for their sick and older patients who are at highest risk for covid. No one is controlling their body any more than making it show up at work in order to get paid. Coal miners are forced to work in dangerous conditions around the world in order to keep their job. Getting a vaccine is far less risk, there have been 8 billion plus vaccine doses given against covid around the world.

[gopalv]

> Jobs have requirements

Most of the argument is whether this requirement is in the "employee must wash hands before surgery" category, which is about the patients' right to be safe not the employee's (in theory the patients didn't "choose" to be there).

The people complaining are reacting as if the ruling sounds like "male high school teachers get vasectomies, to keep teenage pregnancies down", because the effects are "permanent, * upto six months" and directly to your body without it being an on-the-job requirement.

The part that makes me leery is that these sort of "are your vaccines upto-date" checklists have always existed, but this time it is controversial (or maybe it was for MMR - but it wasn't news).

[odessacubbage]

>checklists have always existed

this is also the first time where the vaccine industry and the broader public health space have been put under this kind of scrutiny and the combination of politicization, outright lies and deception over masks and policy in both directions and the overall visibility of the sausage making process happens to be occurring alongside a decline of trust in institutional expertise. when most people got their tetanus shots, the faces of the medical profession were not acting as explicitly political agents.

[kelnos]

I don't think you can argue that it's the medical profession's fault that this issue has become politicized without acknowledging that the GOP deserves most of the blame here.

Nearly every common-sense measure implemented during this pandemic has been derided by the right as some sort of unacceptable infringement on individual rights.

Not saying those in power have gotten it all right 100% of the time; I'm especially disappointed with the mask fiasco you mention, but... c'mon. Doctors are not acting as "political agents" in the vast majority of situations that have caused the US's pandemic response to be as lacking as it's been.

[oceanplexian]

> Nearly every common-sense measure implemented during this pandemic has been derided by the right as some sort of unacceptable infringement on individual rights.

It's not common sense if a plurality of people don't agree with it. Denying children in-person schooling for a year wasn't "common sense", cancelling elective procedures like cancer screenings wasn't "common sense", forcing people to wear masks outdoors wasn't "common sense", and so on. Lots of people were denied rights in these cases and would consider those measures unacceptable.

[odessacubbage]

frankly there is plenty of blame to go around among partisans starting with the complete and total looting of our pandemic response capabilities that occurred during the obama years or the bipartisan offshoring of nearly all our capacity to produce medical supplies and allowing consolidation to make hospitals utterly brittle in the face of a crisis. the lies and poor decisions are numerous enough from all sides that it really is not interesting to play the blame game about who is worse, residents of either team will always believe their lies were noble and mistakes justified while the 'other' is the source of all the real problems. the end result is the same, efficacy and legitimacy of administrators has cratered and i cannot honestly blame anyone who does not trust these institutions to act in good faith anymore.

[loudtieblahblah]

so you'd be cool with employers banning employees who get an abortion.

something, something, consequences.

[dang]

Would you please stop posting flamewar comments and otherwise breaking the site guidelines? You've unfortunately done it a lot lately. We ban that sort of account because it destroys what this site is supposed to be for.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

[tfehring]

If having had an abortion materially negatively impacted a healthcare worker's ability to safely provide healthcare to a sick person, then yes, that should probably be grounds for disallowing those people from working as healthcare practitioners. Thankfully that's not the case.

[joshuamorton]

That's actually quite likely legal already.

If expect there are certain Catholic organizations who would fire you if you admitted to having had an abortion.

[shadowgovt]

Your intuition is correct (in that there's no over-arching precedent or Constitutionally-derived right that makes it illegal), but it's specifically banned under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as per a 1978 law modifying the act. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/pregnancy-discrimination-act-1...

... Which goes to the court ruling that's the topic of the article: Congress has the power to decide these issues.

[clukic]

Does that mean you support a rollback of all vaccine requirements? For example the MMR, TDap, HepB, polio, chicken pox vaccines required for school children? Or the numerous vaccines required for military personal?

And would you be comfortable having a pediatrician who wasn't inoculated for diphtheria knowing that an infection could be fatal for your baby?

[kiba]

Your freedom to control over one's body ends when it comes to the safety and health of other people's bodies. That's why herd immunity is a thing.

[JavaBatman]

There is no right to not receive another's germs. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, then the flu vaccine would be mandated. But it's not. So if you say that Covid is different, then what is your threshold or cut-off for when a medical procedure should be mandated?

[kiba]

There is no right to not receive another's germs. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, then the flu vaccine would be mandated. But it's not. So if you say that Covid is different, then what is your threshold or cut-off for when a medical procedure should be mandated?

Why not? if the cost & benefit ratio is worth it, maybe we should. The same for any other diseases you can think of. If the answer is yes, then there are no reason for any of us to refuse unless we have good excuses.

[aixi]

>There is no right to not receive another's germs

Intentionally coughing on someone is a prosecutable crime in many parts of the world --- What do you think makes it a crime?

[JavaBatman]

You are smart enough to know that intentionally coughing on someone is not what I meant.

[jtbayly]

Tell me again what percent of people need to be immune before we get to herd immunity?

[SuoDuanDao]

Identical arguments are made around abortion. Or mandatory organ/blood donations. Actually, nobody argues for mandatory blood donations because we can all tell that would be icky.

[tiahura]

“herd immunity is a thing.”

It is? By Easter right? With what other coronavirus have we ever reached herd immunity?

[NoPie]

Not in the case of current covid vaccines and variants.

[Chris2048]

> safety and health of other people's bodies

Does that not include the unborn?

[crisdux]

The case for that line of reasoning is extremely weak given that vaccines provide dramatically low protection against infection and vaccinated people also infect others at high rates.

[BurningFrog]

If that's true, how come several federal judges have come to the opposite conclusion in their rulings?

[kelnos]

I can only assume they're allowing their personal politics to get in the way of making a sound legal decision.

[golemotron]

That's the key problem with the US now. Elected representatives are allowed to delegate law making. It breaks the line of accountability. It makes contentious issues worse.

[runako]

> the key problem with the US now. Elected representatives are allowed to delegate law making.

Congress does not delegate lawmaking, Congress delegates the execution of its powers to the Executive branch. This is how the country has functioned since the beginning, for it would be impractical for it to work otherwise.

Say more: delegation will happen at some level, by definition. In military matters, every step or shot a soldier takes is a decision that has been delegated through a chain of command from Congress. Since Congress is not ever going to be in a position to execute every decision for every individual over which Congress has power, Congress inevitably will delegate the execution of its powers. It has always been this way, and will be this way as long as we have a republic.

[golemotron]

> Congress delegates the execution of its powers to the Executive branch

That's the Constitution, not Congress. Regulation, as well, is not execution. Thomas's concurrence on Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns signals where things might go.

[runako]

> Regulation, as well, is not execution.

This is an opinion that was not widely held for most of the last 100 years or so.

> Thomas's concurrence on Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns signals where things might go.

Definitely agree that our legal regime looks headed for major changes. I consider it likely that SCOTUS will reverse itself on a set of major principles, creating uncertainty for citizens and businesses until a new equilibrium is reached.

[handrous]

I'd say the key problem is that our electoral system and the structure of our government are broken in a few very serious ways, most of which are nearly impossible to fix, in no small part because fixing most of them would require at least one of our two major political parties to be OK with voting themselves into a weaker position (since some of the most important problems cause there to be only two viable parties at a time and fixing them would weaken the position of both those parties), or else they'd require a constitutional amendment, which is even less likely.

Most of our other problems are a consequence of that.