[tomjakubowski]

In the US regulation is, in theory, regulated by Congress, which passes laws granting regulation powers to the federal agencies. Congress and the laws it passes are, in theory, regulated by the Constitution, and interpretation thereof by the Supreme Court.

[quantified]

Regulation is always by motivation. Charges can be delayed, cops can decide not to arrest, prosecutors can decide not to prosecute, etc.

Government was supposed to be high-trust, but Nixon weakened the trust, Reagan explicitly took aim at it and lots of people went along. Now the reactionaries run things. Cancer in the brain.

[sp4cec0wb0y]

And the supreme court is unregulated (except for appointment and impeachment).

[ckozlowski]

Well, that and, by passing additional legislation.

There's two parts to this. The first is that in most cases, the issues stem from lack of clarity in existing legislation, or contradictions thereof. At anytime, if Congress does not like the way the Supreme Court ruled, they can pass different legislation.

The second stems in part from the first. If what Congress passed is interpreted as being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the States can amend the constitution.

There is no case where the Supreme Court can (in principle) simply make their own rules*

The debate and controversy comes where the Supreme Court is seen as making their own rules (or arguably asked to) because the legislative process is deemed too cumbersome or disadvantageous to a party. In my opinion, this is where a lot of the difficulties lie, in that the Supreme Court is asked to rule on matters that really should be more clearly legislated. But the issues are seen as easier/quicker to address by convincing 9 justices rather than two legislative bodies and a chief executive. Naturally, this brings it's own consequences.

[ceejayoz]

> Well, that and, by passing additional legislation.

The Voting Rights Act might disagree on that.

> There is no case where the Supreme Court can (in principle) simply make their own rules.

With at least one significant exception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

[advisedwang]

While true, it doesn't have to be.

US Constitution Article III Section 2 Clause 2 which says the supreme court's appellate jurisdiction is subject to "Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." So Congress could, for example, require the supreme court to hear every case appealed to them instead of letting the justices pick their cases. Or it could require judges to recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest*. Or it could forbid the court hearing cases where an en banc appeals court was unanimous.

* which could have more teeth than the self-imposed ethics rules for conflict of interest that the court has now.