Hacker News Reader

Comment by yongjik | Hacker News Reader

Err, we've seen what happened when the Bad Guys (TM) won the election. They pack the Supreme Court with their friendly Bad Guys (TM) so that the Court can make decisions in their favor. (If you object, feel free to switch Good/Bad guys, and it will be still true.)

So "Please consider that supreme courts may also limit the power of the Bad Guys" is clearly false, because when the Team X has power, they will make sure Team X is in every branch of the government, and their justices will decide whatever the executive branch is doing is very kosher and constitutional, as long as it's their team.

In the end, the system can only hold as long as even "Bad Guys" are good enough that they're not willing to break the system from inside. You keep electing the Real Bad Guys, the system will fail. Checks and balances aren't magic.

View on HN

Simply because you're not a fan of the outcomes doesn't mean that the appointments of justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were illegitimate. Chevron deference started under the Stevens court and the deference it entailed related to the Reagan administration. That this has become a conservative hobby horse since then has nothing to do with policy preferences that only cut one way in a partisan way, and has everything to do with a deeper disagreement over the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary. Chevron deference isn't "the system" it's simply one precedent that has been faltering for years. There's no reason for any "side" to see this as the sky falling unless you really, really want to preserve some federal regulation that is TOO IMPORTANT to allow statutes to clarify.

>Simply because you're not a fan of the outcomes doesn't mean that the appointments of justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were illegitimate.

I agree; just because I don't like their made-up and pre-determined justifications doesn't make their appointments illegitimate; that would be Mitch McConnell's blatant disregard for the timely execution of his responsibilities basically without recent precedent and certainly inconsistent between the times he did actually fulfill his duties.

One of Gorsuch or Barrett must be illegitimate if you want to be consistent.

Scalia should have been replaced by Obama, or Ginsburg shouldn't have been replaced by Trump. All of the arguments that the Republicans made about Scalia's replacement were equally applicable to Ginsburg's.

Nevermind the huge swaths of non-SC justices whose spots were held open by McConnell and replaced by Trump.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com