SCOTUS Overturning Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council [SPLIT]

[cityboy-stl]

Well, here we go. I'm betting LGB rights and anti-discrimination regulations will be hit soon.

I hope you all supporting overturning "Chevron" are happy.

Judge cites new Supreme Court ruling in blocking health care anti-discrimination protections for transgender Americans [CNN]
.
In ruling against the Biden administration, the judge also pointed to a major Supreme Court ruling last week that overturned the decades-old “Chevron Deference” precedent...
.

 

[Kulindahr]

When I hear my Democratic friends bemoan the Electoral College or the SCOTUS decisions they don't like, I always ask, "So, what are you going to do about it?".

I have a prompt answer: make the House of Representatives into the People's House again by a simple program -- increase its size by 10% every House election for the next 16 such elections. That will balance Congress the way it was supposed to be and correspondingly balance the EC.

Democrats always have an excuse about why they don't want to fight dirty.

Democrats could have turned this around twenty years ago just by stopping the opposition to the 2nd Amendment. Of all the people I know who vote Republican, one in four or five would vote Democrat except for that one item.

 

[rareboy]

Well that is never going to happen.

 

[Kulindahr]

We are trying to play by the rules of democracy to save democracy.

Except a big part of the problem is that the political parties were killed by democracy. Back in the time of the last good GOP president Trump would never have even gotten on the ballot because the party structure insisted on candidates who knew how to be dignified if not competent; now the political parties are captive to their own extremists.

There are no old school conservative Republicans left.

There are plenty, but the Democrats have embraced their own radicals and left the old-school Republicans no choice -- and now they are trapped by a party they no longer have influence over.

Which is why they need to be relegated to a permanent minority until they move back to a more centrist agenda.

Democrats should get the states they control to do away with congressional districts and have Representatives elects statewide so that "third" parties will be able to elect people. Once that happens the GOP will splinter and never again be able to hold the House. In fact if the numbers I ran ten years ago are still applicable, if just the three largest Dem-run states did this it should be enough.

 

[KaraBulut]

I have a prompt answer: make the House of Representatives into the People's House again by a simple program -- increase its size by 10% every House election for the next 16 such elections. That will balance Congress the way it was supposed to be and correspondingly balance the EC.

It is a fuckup that Congress has ignored the apportionment process that was the original way that seats were allocated. It was largely done because in the 1920s, they believe that the US population was going to level off and having 200,000 people per Congress kept costs down and saved on having to purchase more office space and employees. Now, members of the House represent up to 700,000 people per House member... and Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have no voting members. It all needs to be fixed. It's doubtful, with Congress having such low favorability ratings, that the American public is going to believe that the solution to any problem is more money spent on Congress.

However, the Electoral College is a separate issue. It's another issue where Congress and the People are in disagreement. The Electoral College has no constituency outside DC and it polls pretty much like abortion: 60-70% of Americans have a different opinion of the Electoral College system compared to their elected representatives.

Democrats could have turned this around twenty years ago just by stopping the opposition to the 2nd Amendment. Of all the people I know who vote Republican, one in four or five would vote Democrat except for that one item.

You mean supporting the 2nd Amendment as it was interpreted by the Courts for over 200 years? I've never heard a Democrat oppose the 2nd Amendment. They just disagree about the interpretation (which even Scalia supported with in Heller).

It may look like that because of the way guns impact cities (who are more likely to have Democratic representation) versus the rural areas that are more likely to have Republican representation. Urban elected officials tend to be in favor of reasonable management of gun ownership because their constituents are more likely to be shot by a third party. On the other side of that elected officials from rural America tend to be liberal on gun proliferation and their constituents are twice as likely to commit suicide by gun.

Get ready though, because there's a generation coming out of high schools these days with a "repeal and replace" strategy.

 

[cityboy-stl]

The rules of democracy expect people to act and abide by them in good faith.
We are trying to play by the rules of democracy to save democracy.
They are abusing the rules of democracy to destroy democracy.

---

View attachment 2607310View attachment 2607311

If you're going to quote me, use the whole quote.
"We" in context clearly refers to Democrats. "They" in context clearly refers to republicans.

Democrats have a few congressional members who are more left than the party as a whole. They've not been all that effective.
Congressional Democrats are mostly center to center-left. There are no Democrats trying to overturn the rules and norms of democracy. Much less stage a violent coup.

All members of the entire republican party in congress, are now far right fascists. There are virtually zero republican centrists remaining in Congress.
They all vote for fascist policies. If you vote for fascist policies, you are a fascist.
Republicans reject the rules. The whole party has been about overturning democracy, ignoring the rules and norms, and "burning it all down".

Stop tying to "both sides" this.

The parties are not the same.

 

[Kulindahr]

However, the Electoral College is a separate issue. It's another issue where Congress and the People are in disagreement.

It's not a separate issue because larger House delegations means larger EC delegations. If the House had kept expanding as intended, none of the discrepancies between 'popular vote' and EC vote in the last hundred years would have happened.

The Electoral College has no constituency outside DC and it polls pretty much like abortion:

Huh? The EC is elected by the voters.

You mean supporting the 2nd Amendment as it was interpreted by the Courts for over 200 years?

That's a tiresome lie: the 2nd was interpreted as an individual right from the beginning, and was intended to guarantee that the citizenry would have access to the same arms as a professional arm; that's not just in the Federalist (and anti-) Papers but in court decisions.

 

[Kulindahr]

Republicans reject the rules. The whole party has been about overturning democracy, ignoring the rules and norms, and "burning it all down".

They've become "classical republicans", as in the Roman Republic where the Senate was all the wealthiest people around.

 

[rareboy]

Get ready for it mes Americaine amis.

Thanks to the overturn of the Chevron Defense, y'all will likely soon be getting gouged for internet.

 

[cityboy-stl]

Get ready for it mes Americaine amis.

Thanks to the overturn of the Chevron Defense, y'all will likely soon be getting gouged for internet.

In addition to data caps, this could make the internet like cable channels. If you want to shop online, you have to pay for access to shopping sites; if you want news, you have to pay for access to news sites, if you want access to JUB, you have to pay for access to porn sites. They could also arbitrarily block any site they don't like - you can have Fox.com but not MSNBC.com or any independent news site, for example. Or an extra fee to stream Netflix. Also, it furthers the oligarchy. Amazon for example, could pay ISPs to give speed and response priority to their site and throttle competitors.

Loss of Net Neutrality is a disaster for consumers, but a boon to the oligarchy and reich-wing fascists.

 

[rareboy]

You got it.

And Americans will tolerate it. And it will likely slop over into Canada.

 

[KaraBulut]

Democrats are defending something that most Americans want but they're doing it under the guise of something that most Americans don't want- excessive regulations via agency rules.

The Democrats knew that the Trumpists were going to undo net neutrality when they got into power. The Democrats had 2 years in power from 2020-2022 to update the 1934 Telecom Act to extend the FCC's authority to include the internet, instead of wasting Congress' time passing virtue signalling legislation. There's a few who get it - like Amy Klobuchar [R-MN] but most of Congress is clueless about the tech industry.

This is where they're losing the battle: they are now viewed as the "status quo" party. Instead of running on a reform agenda that says, "The American public wants a free, open and affordable internet. Vote for us and we will ensure you get it."

 

[rareboy]

Yup. It is why increasingly Americans see the Republicans and the Democrats as the uni-party...with almost everyone owned by the same billionaires and industires who keep the perpetual election spending economy going.

It is now too late to get money out of politics in the United States, which is why the country is collapsing into an open oligarchy and kakistocracy, desigend to bleed the wealth out of the middle and lower classes.

And this will just be another important step.

 

[cityboy-stl]

Most people don't even know what "Net Neutrality" means. When I explain it and the implications of not having it, yes they want Net Neutrality, except for the far-righters who claim it's "government control". It is impossible to convince them that it's exactly the opposite of government control. To them, it is just a regulation and therefore bad.

 

[KaraBulut]

...It is now too late to get money out of politics in the United States, which is why the country is collapsing into an open oligarchy and kakistocracy, desigend to bleed the wealth out of the middle and lower classes...

It was Mitch McConnell's campaign to undo things like McCain-Feingold. He knew that big donor money was needed to accomplish the deconstruction that they were after. Citizens United was just a way to get the issue before SCOTUS to that "corporations are people" and "corporations have free speech" and "money is free speech".

As usual, the Right plays chess while the Left is trying to figure out where they put their checkers set.

Most people don't even know what "Net Neutrality" means. When I explain it and the implications of not having it, yes they want Net Neutrality, except for the far-righters who claim it's "government control". It is impossible to convince them that it's exactly the opposite of government control. To them, it is just a regulation and therefore bad.

We got net neutrality during the Obama years because there was a grass roots campaign from the tech aficionados and an FCC Chair to encourage the things that the Right now claims they want: "open and free speech" and "a level playing field". In 2017, when Trump came to power, that was one of the things that they undid under the guise of "deregulation". The issue got so heated that the net neutrality activists threatened to kill the FCC chair. I can't remember if they planned on putting something in that big fucking coffee cup he carried around.

In 2021, when Biden won the Biden FCC chair immediately reinstated net neutrality rules and went after companies that did shady things like slowing internet connections for customers who had unlimited data plans.

The Right has been fighting. It's unclear what the Left is doing. The Left has been just sitting idle while the right has been doing big government things like restricting access to adult websites and doing it at the State level.

 

[Kulindahr]

Get ready for it mes Americaine amis.

Thanks to the overturn of the Chevron Defense, y'all will likely soon be getting gouged for internet.

We already gt gouged for internet -- last I looked, where I am we pay three times as much for 100mbps as most of Europe pays for 1gbps -- and we're lucky for it to actually be more than 50mbps.

 

[Kulindahr]

Citizens United was just a way to get the issue before SCOTUS to that "corporations are people" and "corporations have free speech" and "money is free speech".

Those were already in place before Citizens. And we can be glad it went the way it did, or Congress could have had the authority to decide what constitutes political speech and who gets to engage in it and when.

 

[cityboy-stl]

We already gt gouged for internet -- last I looked, where I am we pay three times as much for 100mbps as most of Europe pays for 1gbps -- and we're lucky for it to actually be more than 50mbps.

What are people paying for Internet these days? I wonder how it compares across the country? Or outside the US?

I have Spectrum/Charter: $82.99 for 400mbps, $22.99 for voip phone (Yeah I still have a landline), $19.99 for cell service.
Also, I stream Sling $45.99 and Netflix $15.49

 

[TX-Beau]

What are people paying for Internet these days? I wonder how it compares across the country? Or outside the US?

I have Spectrum/Charter: $82.99 for 400mbps, $22.99 for voip phone (Yeah I still have a landline), $19.99 for cell service.
Also, I stream Sling $45.99 and Netflix $15.49

$99.00 It's super-fast and I use it for work, so they pay half.