Maggie's Farm

indyjonesouthere: SCOTUS ruling on bureaucratic overreach. The unelected need to be replaced by the elected decision makers.

You do realize that the Supreme Court is not elected?

In any case, this relates to the complexity of the modern world. Consider water quality. The Congress passed the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) which prohibits the discharge of toxic pollutants into the nation's waters. The Congress directed the executive branch to conduct research on pollutants and their effects and to promulgate appropriate regulations. Congress also has enacted rules on how those regulations are to be themselves enacted, including a period of public comment.

If this authority is ruled unconstitutional, then either every rule would be subject to endless dispute on grounds by courts ill-equipped to understand the technical issues, or Congress would have to explicitly research and regulate each pollutant in a world where new chemicals are invented every day. It would be as if every time a town put up a stop sign, it would be subject to litigation or would require the legislature to rule on each and every stop sign. Instead, the legislature has granted the power to a transportation authority to make such decisions.

indyjonesouthere: Do you realize that the Senate originally was not elected by the general public?

Yes, but not responsive.

indyjonesouthere: In any case the bureaucrats want to regulate intrastate water puddles.

Again, not responsive. When installing a new stop sign, should an expert working for the transportation department enacted under a general law about road safety make the decision, or should each and every street sign require a vote of the legislation, or do you think each and every street sign should be decided by plebiscite?

indyjonesouthere: I would mandate a vote at the local level for street sign installation, for license plate readers and speed limits as a starter package.

Hey, a responsive reply! That would require very frequent voting, with most people not having relevant knowledge of the intersections involved, and subject to change as traffic conditions change. It wouldn’t be practical. But at least you answered.

indyjonesouthere: Few people are familiar with all those running for offices in their voting district but they should still have that option.

But you're not talking about one judge or one dogcatcher. Even a small town may have hundreds of traffic signs; a city may have thousands. Expecting the general public to reasonably participate in deciding such issues is simply not practical. That's why there are representatives. And representatives rely upon experts because they don't know the details about water contaminants or what the timing should be on a new traffic light. Really, how much perfluorobutane sulfonic acid or hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid should be allowed to be discharged into the environment? Do you really think the average voter has any idea? Do you really think the average town council member has a grasp of the issue? And if they do, where do you think they acquired the knowledge, except by conferring with experts.

feeblemind: Democrats are threatening to remove security funding for Supreme Court

Democratic Senators threatened to withhold $10 million in funding of a $150 million budget, unless the Supreme Court enacts an enforceable code of ethics. Security is nowhere mentioned in the letter. The power of the purse is a common mechanism to exert Congressional influence.

feeblemind: If there are no negative consequences for the bureaucrats in charge, why would they come to heel?

Bureaucrats can be held to account under the law. As a general example, the government passes a law setting up a department with the goal of road safety, then experts research the situation and make decisions, such as where a new stop sign should be installed. The head of the executive is held responsible in democratic elections if the potholes never get filled. In a modern, highly complex society, how would you envision it would work?

indyjonesouthere: The inspector general just released information on the illegal FISA searches for several hundred of FBI searches.

The searches were authorized under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The government has been casting too wide a net, so the government instituted new controls, and such searches dropped by 95% from the previous year. However, new legal restraints may be imposed by Congress.

indyjonesouthere: When will those that violated the FISA standards be fined and fired?

We did. The agents were following FBI procedures established under Section 702. When it was apparent the procedures were insufficient, the procedures were changed. That may not be sufficient, and Congress may yet legislate or even eliminate Section 702, though there are legitimate security concerns.