[AlbertCory]

> federal policy is best determined by life time appointees

Prove you wrong? For sure. It's best determined by elected officials. Second best is judges. In last place we have bureaucrats never elected by anyone nor even appointed by someone who was.

[ceejayoz]

FTC commissioners are appointed, and approved by the Senate, just like judges.

The distinction you’re trying to draw doesn’t exist.

[AlbertCory]

> The distinction

does exist. We're just arguing about the metes and bounds of their legislatively-granted authority.

I can't tell you don't agree about SCOTUS but I believe there were over 1,200 comments about that this week and there's no point in adding to it.

[specialist]

IIRC, that thread was about Trump v United States, (IANAL IMHO) pertaining to unitary executive theory.

Whereas I'm whinging about this court's multiple precedent smashing decisions attacking administrative law, (IANAL IMHO) pertaining to the judicial primacy.

Obviously, I do not think POTUS is the law, nor SCOTUS is outside the law. Stately plainly, I'm certain that > 70% of Americans would agree.

On my more practical terms, I can't abide the Robert's Court eschewing any legal theory. It decides cases peice meal. They selectively use Textualism, Originalism, Historicalism, Major Doctrines, Revanchism, or 4chan memes, to reach predetermined outcomes. With no regard for making each decision mesh with all the others. With no effort to provide guidance to the lower courts. Repeatedly contradicting themselves!

Resulting in chaos.

As we've seen with Dobbs (overturning Roe v Wade). And we'll now see with their push-pull wrt executive power (eg, On the one hand, POTUS' administrative state can't do anything, and on the other, POTUS can do anything as an "official act". OMG! Which izzit?! Make up your minds!)

It's one thing for me (or any one) to disagree with their decisions. That's totally normal. (In a civil society.)

It's another thing entirely when no one knows what the law is any more. This is new. This is not normal.

WTF do we even call this? Calvinball?

[zeroonetwothree]

I don’t necessarily agree with their decisions but I think they are not so inconsistent as you claim. They want the executive to be more limited in power, but the power it does wield to be mostly immune from oversight by the other branches. It’s a “we each stay in our lane” philosophy.

[specialist]

Sarcasm. Sorry for the confusion. For future, I'll add a "/s" suffix when I'm mocking reactionary talking points.