![Democrats: Stop Panicking](https://external-preview.redd.it/FpIanL2Hi7e_I0kMUe0pTpJYFNwH5LPWdiqlRLLQxuQ.jpg?auto=webp&s=ec04a272610564d55c52180c96515d514436fc27)
www.nytimes.com/2024/06/29/opinion/democrats-panic-joe-biden.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3U0.X_HH.ZAmuJaMus6ZU
This sort of comment drives me crazy. Whether you like them or not, the recent Supreme Court decisions are well within the bounds of normal give and take of politics. Trump is a once in a generation threat to the country. Blurring them together this way only normalizes Trump.
Genuine question.
In the past three decades, were any long-standing precedents unraveled like they have been as of late?
Privacy is the real issue behind Roe. Bribery was made legal, the backbone of every regulatory agency just got cracked in half, and we're advocating for punishing the homeless for being homeless..
These feel a bit extreme to call them normal
Sure. In 1973, the Supreme Court disrupted the precedent—one that went all the way back to the founding of the nation—that the question of whether abortion would be legal was an issue to be settled by passing laws for or against. (By the way, that doesn’t mean it’s not important; lots and lots of incredibly crucial issues and rights are settled that way.) Roe decided that the abortion issue from then forward would be decided by the 9 people sitting on the Supreme Court. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, that’s a pretty important power grab.
Bribery was not made legal—that’s absurd. The SC simply ruled that the current statute passed by Congress does not apply to payments made after the fact. But Congress (or any state legislature) can easily fix that problem in five minutes by clearing up the statute.
Despite what you read here, the Chevron doctrine was not that important in practical reality. Judges interpreted agency rules before, and they will do so now. Liberals will do so in liberal ways, conservatives in conservative ways. But all of it is still subject to Congressional oversight—which is normal politics.
And the court doesn’t get to decide how we treat the homeless. All the court ruled was that there’s nothing in the constitution that stops cities from deciding their own rules. Notably, this was ALREADY THE LAW in most of the country—the Ninth Circuit was the exception.
I guess draw your own conclusion, but “normal” politics means lots of laws and rules get changed back and forth all the time, including really important ones. That’s just democracy in a large, complex, diverse nation.
I think that’s COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the danger that Trump poses. He’s a unique threat to the system itself.
Thank you very much for taking the time.. I've got one more for you.
Bribery was not made legal—that’s absurd. The SC simply ruled that the current statute passed by Congress does not apply to payments made after the fact. But Congress (or any state legislature) can easily fix that problem in five minutes by clearing up the statute.
If I read you correctly based on can easily fix that problem, this operates under the assumption that those to benefit from this change directly, are also the ones we'd hope to enact legal measures to prevent it?
The clarification of "payments after the fact" just feels like "I'll do this for you, but you have to wait to give me the kickback." No?
Congress passed the original act and could have gutted it at any time, but didn’t.
At any rate, public corruption is as old as government itself. It’s not a unique danger.