[AdamJacobMuller]

Comments like this, where someone who is directly involved and deeply knowledgable, randomly jumps in are why I love HN.

People are so fixated on a result (in this case lowering CO2 emissions) that they can't see past that to consider the actual fundamental legal principles of court decisions, especially supreme court ones. I see this as a failure of our legislative branch, they are incapable of legislating effectively and people look to the courts to achieve their desired ends. Moreover it seems like people don't consider the negative effects if courts decided cases in the other direction (e.g. how federal agencies could abuse their authority if Chevron had been upheld).

I try to read the actual decisions, especially for Supreme Court ones, especially when I superficially disagree with the result and I very rarely end up disagreeing with the decisions. It's bizarre to me how the media only reports on how they disagree with the result (which is a legitimate opinion) and completely fail to discuss, debate or report on the legal theory behind the decision, they commonly seem to not even report on the actual legal question being decided! I have never seen a single mainstream news article which correctly casts blame on congress for failing to legislate effectively or unambiguously.

[mullingitover]

> Moreover it seems like people don't consider the negative effects if courts decided cases in the other direction (e.g. how federal agencies could abuse their authority if Chevron had been upheld).

We don't need to hypothesize, Chevron was the law of the land for most of our lifetimes until the self-appointed Supreme Court super-legislature intervened. Arguably Chevron itself was the courts recognizing established legislative function with federal agencies that had existed for decades prior. We can see exactly how federal agencies would or would not abuse their authority, and congress really didn't have a problem with the situation as evidenced by the the absence of legislation to change the arrangement.

The legislative failure is really that congress hasn't immediately drafted new legislation to reverse this brazen power grab, discipline the rogue justices, and reform the Supreme Court back into its place as an apolitical branch.

[AdamJacobMuller]

> We can see exactly how federal agencies would or would not abuse their authority

I would argue that federal agencies have absolutely spent those decades abusing their authority.

[mullingitover]

It must be a relief that instead of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats interpreting highly technical implementations of vague statutes, we'll now have unelected, unaccountable judges doing it.

[tpmoney]

It is, for the same reasons that it's a relief that the "unelected, unaccountable judges" interpret highly technical implementations of vague criminal statutes instead of the police. Because the police by their nature are biases towards the interpretations that make their jobs easier and give them the powers they want regardless of if they actually have it.

[mullingitover]

> it's a relief that the "unelected, unaccountable judges" interpret highly technical implementations

In the same judgment where the Supreme Court gave themselves total power to interpret technical implementations of the law, they confused nitrogen oxides with laughing gas.

I wish I shared your faith in the ability of narrowly specialized lawyers to work outside their core competency.

[tpmoney]

I have very little faith in the ability of narrowly specialized lawyers to work outside their core competency. The courts get things wrong all the time. I also have little faith in the ability of narrowly specialized administrators outside their own core competency (that being administration), or for that matter, administrators in a revolving door of regulatory capture.

My faith is in the same thing all of open source places their faith in, enough eyeballs. Congress makes a law, administrators enforce said law, citizens challenge said enforcement, courts rule on the state of the law, congress makes a law. And as we iterate over this process, the bugs are ironed out, the stakeholders have input and we work ever more towards a "more perfect" ideal.

[autoexec]

unelected, unaccountable judges which are also far more difficult to oust/replace.

[aredox]

And don't answer to the elected officials, thanks to the separation of powers.

[autoexec]

> The legislative failure is really that congress hasn't immediately drafted new legislation to reverse this brazen power grab, discipline the rogue justices, and reform the Supreme Court back into its place as an apolitical branch.

A good number of those in congress intend to exploit this opportunity to push ideological and political changes while crippling the efforts of the other members to do anything to stop them. Unless/until there are enough people in congress who see this situation for the danger that it is, there's no chance of new legislation that would do that.

[abigail95]

how can we interpret that the legislature doesn't have a problem with chevron because they didn't draft countering legislation, but take the opposite approach when they don't draft countering legislation in the opposite case?

[mullingitover]

The former status quo existed for about four decades, the new for about a month. I don't think we can read much into it at this point.

[giantg2]

"It's bizarre to me how the media only reports on how they disagree with the result (which is a legitimate opinion) and completely fail to discuss, debate or report on the legal theory behind the decision"

In a lot of cases, they do more than that and outright misrepresent it.

[AdamJacobMuller]

I was trying to soften my opinion. I very much agree with you.

[refurb]

> they can't see past that to consider the actual fundamental legal principles of court decisions

Precisely.

The court isn't ruling about CO2 emissions, it's ruling how the government operates within the confines of our constitutional system.

If Congress fails to pass a law that correctly empowers an administrative body to regulate X, then that regulatory body should be prevented from regulating X.

The issue then gets kicked back to Congress, where their job is to refine the law to address its deficiencies.

The idea that Congress can pass overly broad laws that administrative bodies can then independently interpret that are outside the ability to challenge in a court of law seems like a terrible system.

[ant6n]

> I see this as a failure of our legislative branch, they are incapable of legislating effectively and people look to the courts to achieve their desired ends.

Uh, the US has a deeply dysfunctional system. It covers most aspects of governance, judiciary, legislative, electoral system, the fifth estate.

It’s entirely reasonable people are only concerned with outcomes, and not process.

[AdamJacobMuller]

I agree that we are deeply dysfunctional but it's not about "outcomes vs process"

It's a very short-sighted thinking of how the process change they want to achieve their outcome today could result in someone else using that same process change for a very bad outcome in the future.

[Alupis]

> It's a very short-sighted thinking of how the process change they want to achieve their outcome today could result in someone else using that same process change for a very bad outcome in the future.

This point needs to be amplified to a near unbearable volume. Turn it up to 11, as it might be said.

Discussions like packing SCOTUS to achieve "desirable" outcomes today completely ignore what the next person in office can/will do with such a precedent tomorrow. We can see this already with Executive Orders and how commonplace they have become - only for the next person in office to undo most or everything.

People, in general, need to be more focused on what is best for the nation long-term, not what is best for their political party today. Unfortunately for many, it seems, the difference has become blurry or unrecognizable. So many people have become victims of believing whatever propaganda their party of choice has put out there, and become hostile to any viewpoints that do not fall inside those lines. "We'll lose our democracy if X happens or if Y is elected". How many "most important elections of our lifetime" are we going to have?

[matthewdgreen]

The functioning of this country was based on the idea that separate branches would use their powers to balance each other. While increasing the size of the court may seem “bad” to you, it’s one of the explicit mechanisms provided by the Constitution for the Legislative and Executive branches to balance out overreach by the Judicial branch. This is the system working as intended. And in the one historical instance where we got very close to actual “court packing”, the result was not partisan warfare, but rather a detente between the branches that led to a period of political stability and prosperity unmatched in US history.

[Alupis]

So one side packs, say 3 new justices onto the court to get their desired outcomes... until they lose an election. Then that next person packs 800 new justices so they can get their outcomes.

Do you see the problem?

That's the short sightedness the GP was commenting about, and it's kind of nutty to realize so few people comprehend such a basic concept. Yet, here we are.

MAD only works when both sides are rational.

[matthewdgreen]

We’re already in a place where one side is using the court as a tool to realize political outcomes. Whether you want to see it or not, the Immunity decision was a huge step in a dangerous direction; and there is certainly a bunch of evidence indicating that some justices on this Court are not dispassionate in their political views and will absolutely step into the democratic process to overturn voting results.

Nobody is packing the court right now. What’s on the table (and only as a discussion, not even as an actionable legislative proposal) is a reasonable package of term limits and meaningful ethics rules — rules that frankly shouldn’t even be a little bit controversial, or even necessary if the Court was doing an even mediocre job of self-policing. But if things get extreme and the Court does begin to cross political lines and override electoral decisions, then I would much rather see a Constitutional response than political violence. My hope is this possibility causes everyone to be as cautious as possible, rather than starting a political war nobody will win.

[shigawire]

>How many "most important elections of our lifetime" are we going to have?

How many more candidates will buck precedent and try to actively overturn election results?

In my estimation each election is quite consequential if at least one candidate is behaving in a way that undermines democratic norms.

[Varriount]

I do agree that the hyperbole often seem in the media ("the most important decision", etc.) is quite ridiculous. That being said, keep in mind the assumptions you make when thinking long-term.

For example, I've had it argued to me that that homosexual individuals shouldn't be allowed civil unions, as doing so would lead to the bankruptcy of the federal government. The "long-term thinking" here was that allowing unions between homosexual individuals would, at some future point, lead to allowing unions between polygamous groups*, which would then lead to people joining in unions for tax purposes, which would then lead to a disruptive loss of income for the government.

[ant6n]

Okay, here’s the first step: install a pluralist democracy via a representative democracy.

That’s gonna take perhaps 100 years, nobody is even talking about it. One party wants to move to some sort of crypto-fascism where a former but dwindling majority will stay in power forever. The other party fashions itself as the „only“ democratic choice against that, and enjoys that position of being the only choice… and doesn’t seem to see the irony that if you’re „the only choice“ in a democratic system, it’s not a democratic system.

In the meantime while fixing the system, please deal with the climate crisis, otherwise this whole „long term view“ will be moot.

[lmm]

The fact that the main way to achieve an outcome in the US is by changing the process is the outcome-vs-process dysfunctionality. It's not short-sighted thinking, it's realism. The US politico-legal environment has far more respect for process than for outcome, so processes have been co-opted to serve political purposes and if you try to simply follow the existing process or set a neutral process then you'll always lose.

[autoexec]

I worry that the idea is the process changes being made today will be used to prevent anyone else from having a hope in hell of being able to use it at any point in the future.

[wakawaka28]

The US is not deeply dysfunctional. Some amount of friction is built in to put the brakes on any sudden outcropping of nonsense from any single element of government.

[AdamJacobMuller]

While I agree with you in principle, that the friction is "as designed," I still say our system is broken -- even when there are things which a supermajority of people agree on, our legislators are unable to craft solutions which align which the majority of people agree with, without inserting things which are designed to cater to tiny minority special interests, which can effectively "poison pill" a bill so that nobody likes it (even if it's passed).

Alternatively, we pass giant tomes of legislation (esp budgets) which literally nobody can understand let alone agree on.

[gunapologist99]

If a supermajority of people agree on both the purpose and implementation of anything, then their elected representatives will easily come to an agreement as well. That's literally how laws get passed.

Conversely, not passing laws is a feature, not a bug.

> Alternatively, we pass giant tomes of legislation (esp budgets) which literally nobody can understand let alone agree on.

I agree. These massive laws are rushed through precisely because leadership knows that people won't have enough time for debate, let alone in proper order.

[Alupis]

So, so, so many people get caught up in information bubbles and fall victim to thinking everyone agrees with their viewpoint. This leads to the disillusionment with congress and the belief of it being "ineffective" because from their perspective, everyone is in agreement so why are these policies not being passed?

No, instead the system is working as designed. When there is no consensus on a policy, the policy is not passed.

[ant6n]

> If a supermajority of people agree on both the purpose and implementation of anything, then their elected representatives will easily come to an agreement as well. That's literally how laws get passed.

In a representative democratic system.

The US does not have a representative democratic system.

[autoexec]

> If a supermajority of people agree on both the purpose and implementation of anything, then their elected representatives will easily come to an agreement as well. That's literally how laws get passed.

That's not even close to how laws get passed. If what you say were true, then why don't we have many laws the vast majority of Americans want and have laws most Americans oppose? Americans are overwhelmingly against gerrymandering, but miraculously there's no law banning the practice. They also disapprove of overturning Roe v Wade and corporations being considered people. They support legalization of marijuana, support free college education, early voting, data privacy legislation, criminal justice reform, and a 4 day work week but again no help there.

[RandomThoughts3]

I think you are conveniently ignoring how the Senate representation is now so widely disconnected from the demographic reality in your answer.

[Varriount]

Does everyone in that supermajority have equal influence on their respective representatives?

[WarOnPrivacy]

> our legislators are unable to craft solutions which align which the majority of people agree with, without inserting things which are designed to cater to tiny minority special interests

"who fund their campaigns" fits at the end, doesn't it?

ref: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+are+bills+written+by+lobbyist...

Although "who kept a lucrative job waiting for them, once their term ends" works too.

ref: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=revolving+door+congress&ia=web

[nradov]

What are those things on which a supermajority of people agree, including implementation details and funding sources? Everyone wants more free stuff from the government. No one wants to pay higher taxes.

[NotYourLawyer]

The federal judiciary is far less dysfunctional than the other branches.

[Varriount]

Which decisions have you read?

[yowzadave]

> I try to read the actual decisions, especially for Supreme Court ones, especially when I superficially disagree with the result and I very rarely end up disagreeing with the decisions.

Are you equally persuaded by the dissenting opinions? It seems likely that you’ve been fooled by a bunch of lawyers, who are smart and highly trained at making plausible-sounding arguments for whatever their clients require.

Constitutional law is political. The Supreme Court is recruited and appointed for their political loyalties, and to a large extent their decisions conform to their political alignment. To treat their arguments seriously about which side is correctly interpreting a very old, very ambiguous document can be an interesting academic exercise, but it misses the point about what they are actually doing.

[s1artibartfast]

I think it would be more accurate to say they are appointed based on their ideology than politics.

I don't think it is possible to have judges without legal ideology because it is an inherent part of the subject.