2024 US Presidential Election (Taylor's Version)

[bobman0330]

@bbb7979

My understanding is the courts are interpreting laws made by the legislature. So the power is still there, they’d just need to make much more detailed and specific laws that cover aspects previously handled by the administrative bureaucracy in the exec branch. So, it is a handover of power back from exec to legislative.

The legislature can override an agency whenever they want by passing a law to that effect. What Chevron deference changes is who wins if the law is ambiguous and the courts and the agency disagree on the best interpretation. The old rule was that the agency wins, now the court wins.

[bbb7979]

Ok, I still see the long term result if the legislature was actually functioning should be that laws become less ambiguous. It should prevent them from making intentionally ambiguous laws and punting to exec branch.

[GermanGuy]

Try Germany or Estonia

[L.Washington]

This is a really oversimplified understanding though. They made agencies filled with subject matter experts so that Congress wouldn’t have to delve into the details of every tiny thing. For instance, good luck having 218 house members and 60 Senators figure out the precise piece of equipment necessary for mitigating air pollution at a coal plant and updating it every time there’s an innovation. They aren’t making intentionally ambiguous laws on a lark, it’s because the shit is way too complicated for the random dipshits that comprise the legislature to figure out on their own so they do the broad strokes and leave it to the experts in the executive to figure out. All that Loper did was transfer that power from experts at agencies to politicians in robes on the bench.

[AngryQueer]

Ehh this came off as more condescending and missing your point than I wanted. I swear I actually had a different train of thought that I forgot halfway through. Finishing up a 17-hour shift. Lots of long shifts from Sunday forward, and stressed about too much other shit too

[AngryQueer]

No thanks

[clovis8]

If SCOTUS has shown us one thing, it is that there is no version of any law that can be written they can’t interpret anyway they want. See bump stocks for example.

[AngryQueer]

It was this way for like 150 years, but we saw it as progress for most of that

[LKJ]

https://x.com/EmersonPolling/status/1816414533520367753

Work to be done, but not too bad of a picture here since Harris winning the bottom three would likely win the election and a competitive Georgia creates additional outs.

[econophile]

And this is an RV poll, so gotta hope we’re outperforming with LV.

[LKJ]

Don’t polls with RV/LV splits usually shift GOP a bit when going from RV to LV? Not sure these would look rosier with a good LV screen, but hopefully the noise about young voters registering en masse is more than just anecdotal. Obviously that could be significant.

[AngryQueer]

[bobman0330]

Not these days. Marginal voters break GOP

[pvn]

@bbb7979

My understanding is the courts are interpreting laws made by the legislature

hahaha there’s your problem

[pvn]

@bobman0330

Not these days. Marginal voters break GOP

yeah this, it’s sort of flipped from the old conventional wisdom

[Melkerson]

@LKJ

x.com

Work to be done, but not too bad of a picture here since Harris winning the bottom three would likely win the election and a competitive Georgia creates additional outs.

I’m very afraid that this is where we will be at the finish line as well.

I’m pulling for the Khive obviously, but I just don’t see it. At least we’ve got a sweat, tho.

[LKJ]

I’m more optimistic than you about this. Not overwhelmingly so, but still. Since those blue wall states are all currently forecasting Dem Senate wins, it’s easy to see continued gains to do away with the gap where the presidential ticket was running well behind down-ballot candidates during the last few weeks of Biden polling.

[bobman0330]

Yeah, I completely agree. The system doesn’t reward legislators for legislating. Bills that can pass have to be bipartisan because of the filibuster, but legislators (especially in the House) are most worried about their primaries, and passing bipartisan bills is bad for your chances of winning a primary. With that dynamic in place, other actors are going to gobble up power that “belongs” in Congress.

[microbet]

@ChrisV

I’m not accusing you of making this mistake, but I think people often confuse the process of voting for stuff with functional democracy, which I would define more as to what extent political outcomes are responsive to the opinions of the citizenry. The idea that the precise mechanics of selecting a single person to be leader is what determines whether this happens is very dubious to me. There are plenty of full democracies which function well where voters don’t get to directly select the leader at all.

For sure, but I think our system of elections helps lead to the capture of politicians. There are other huge problems besides parties and presidents though of course. Seniority in Congress and the lack of representation of people in populous states in the Senate are immensely undemocratic.

Also, I like to talk about freedom more than democracy and those aren’t the same things. People vote away freedoms all the time.

[microbet]

Neither Congress nor the courts are capable of doing what the bureaucracy does though. And not just because of the kinds of elections, but because of the size and expertise of the workforce. Chevron will mean less regulation.