Comment by yieldcrv | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yieldcrv | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I feel the structure of the US since the New Deal is an aberration, and the court has simply refrained from doing inconvenient things, contorting itself to avoid doing disruptive inconvenient things. That wasnt a partisan view in my world, just an obscure one, until the only ones willing to match that view were extremely partisan.

This court has expressed and shown that it wont refrain from doing disruptive, inconvenient things and I haven't found any of its decisions to be contortions or surprising, after having read those decisions

I often feel like the narrative is the opposite of what I perceive, the media and people that want a different outcome say “they’re legislating from the bench!” when I see the prior court acting like a super congress with entire multipronged frameworks, and this court saying “yeaaaaahhh voters and elected representatives should decide that” whether there is a consensus failure or not, forcing consensus to be made where it was avoided indefinitely. I just dont see that as extreme, extreme would have been it using its privilege to say “yeah that's banned now across the whole republic” and they dont do that, its all quite professional

I dont know man, they are just waiting for someone to bring challenges to every remaining vestige of the New Deal and its expanded interpretation of interstate commerce, given that the 1930s court struck down most of the New Deal until it was threatened, I dont really find finishing the job to be so extreme, just unfamiliar because we were all raised post-New Deal

>I feel the structure of the US since the New Deal is an aberration, and the court has simply refrained from doing inconvenient things, contorting itself to avoid doing disruptive inconvenient things. That wasnt a partisan view in my world, just an obscure one, until the only ones willing to match that view were extremely partisan.

>This court has expressed and shown that it wont refrain from doing disruptive, inconvenient things and I haven't found any of its decisions to be contortions or surprising, after having read those decisions

You mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era

The immediate period before the new deal era that is universally ridiculed by every member of the Court today?

What I expect the court to do is leave absences of law, because Congress or the states neglected to create durable consensus.

Its a predictive quality, instead of one based on feelings. Until I bring a case myself, I’m not arguing or advocating for anything, just listening far better than someone using their energy to protest something they have no control over.

Your example, although I consider it a strawman, I think also shows that even what people believe about this current court is not unique. If they dont like this court, they really wouldnt have liked that court.

Almost nobody alive today remembers America before the New Deal. We've lost the institutional memory of what works and doesn't work in that environment. It is very much a radical position to undo the New Deal consensus.

yes, but if you study US history its like a distortion field has been pulled up, where the President that got the New Deal passed is heralded in all history books for every action he ever did, while in reality most of his New Deal got struck down by the courts and he threatened to pack the court with his people. Like... what? And everything that's left over has been used to control all facets of life, subjugate all states with an interpretation of all commerce being interstate commerce, with any state level autonomy being a gift from Congress if they remembered to include an intrastate exemption

Its a "federal government" by name alone as there is no federalism left. Federalism could be interesting. It will have redundancies, wild differences. But that's the actual country we herald in our history books while we've done something else for the last 100 years.

The court has even expressed interest in going back further: revisiting the insular cases - the status of many of our territories and whether we should possess them at all - for reasons I find extremely universally agreeable, nowadays. If you read the SCOTUS decisions from 1901 they are super racist reasons why we have our territories. The only reason people would disagree is because they either haven't read them or they want to avoid the inconvenience. The constitution doesn't say "if its inconvenient ignore these articles, amendments and don't interpret me". Self determination is decided by the people of the territory in coordination with Congress.

so our radical court is going to undo racist rulings and disrupt an American colonizer streak? bring the cases, the challenge to a territory's status will probably even come from the left once people catch on with the most productive way to operate with this court

I get it, its a paradoxical standard, yes, its radical to do something we're all unfamiliar with. yes, a political entity with the adjective radical is a radical political entity. but are we using this in the colloquial way of illegitimate? no, not at all.

I don’t understand what you’re saying. What’s wrong with the current interpretation of interstate commerce? What is that interpretation?

Are you arguing for the dismantling of Social Security? Medicare?

Are you arguing for Congress letting go of US territories to become their own sovereign countries? What if they want to remain part of the U.S.?

a narrower interpretation of the interstate commerce clause would disable many aspects of the federal governments agency system and require a different legal rationale from Congress if the people want to continue them, I don’t know how those specific examples you mention fall into that and it isn’t an argument for anything specific except an interpretation more congruent with federalism

I’m arguing for more durable consensus. Look at the accession process of Texas versus a territory with Hispanics, Pacific Islanders or Asians, and see how many steps were done in the former versus how many were skipped in the latter. Do those steps and accept any outcome. I’m not arguing for any specific outcome of an areas status.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com