volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@SimpleRobC

No, not blackmail.

The president is requesting additional power to borrow money, and as per checks and balances, he only gets that power if our representatives agree that it's for the best for the country.

It has nothing to do with fault. It's just how the US was designed to work: if generations of Americans are going to be on the hook for paying off that debt, we want to make sure the public is really in agreement with it, through our democratic process.

If the president can't make his case for more borrowing to the elected Congress, then checks and balances means he can't borrow on our dime.

@petergleick

We had a unanimous Supreme Court, composed of justices with approaches that come from many different angles, all agree that the agency was wrong.

In the face of that, what makes you think that the agency, with its own self interests, was right?

Where exactly do you think the Court got it wrong?

@rowemag

Yes, it is unrelated, so we need to call this administration out for trying to distract from its faults with such unrelated things.

Yes, I'd fault politicians of the past for the debts they racked up irresponsibly. But that has nothing to do with the irresponsible actions of THIS administration, that we should hold accountable.

Now this is the administration in power. They must own their actions and not be allowed to fingerpoint at the past to skirt accountability.

@shades

Oh, I see! So the TX Senate passed one version, the House took it up and made some changes, including that one, passed it, and the Senate rejected the House amendments, so it's in conference.

Unfortunately I don't see a record of any House speeches explaining their changes.

Well, we'd both agree that there are problems with giving the governor's administration too much power, right? So this legislation doesn't give them a choice. It directs the Sec. of State to act, regardless of their feelings, which is one safeguard against abuse of power.

It's part of what looks to me like a reasonable approach with guardrails preventing abuse.

@stevengoldfarb

You keep missing that this is a question of law, not a question of my opinion, or the opinion of medical experts, or anything else.

Again, let's fix the laws.

But until we elect better people, until we stop reelecting bad lawmakers and presidents that don't have such concern for that health, this is the law of the land, and we're stuck with it.

@igrok

But keep in mind that in the US system there is law that takes precedent over each other, to iron out exactly this sort of issue.

Federal regulation is defeated by codified statute which is defeated by constitutional imperative.

So in this case, the last Congress gave statutory permission to spend on programs, but that can't override constitutional obligation to service debts.

Constitutionally, the president must not default, and he cannot borrow money. Treasury must pay debts, and spending on other programs is second in priority.

@kevin @ryanlcooper

@petergleick

It was absolutely not a question about what they deserved. That's not a question for the Supreme Court to answer.

That's an answer for the Legislative Branch to grapple with, and the SCOTUS merely respected the conclusion of the US democratic process, whether the particularly class of wetlands deserved protection or not.

The Court said this is not a question it is able to override, once the peoples' representatives have spoken.

If the law needs to be changed, we need to elect better people to Congress.

@ArtBear@mastodonapp.uk, @spoilertv's answers confirmed the simplistic way I thought it worked:

Essentially the original instance merely posts a notice with a forwarding address.

At least, so long as the old instance cares to voluntarily maintain the note.

I think it's very similar to forwarding postal mail arriving for someone who no longer lives there.

@chadmbriggs

I think you're overlooking that this was not at all a scientific matter. It was a legal matter, and as much as we might want the law to be completely on the same page as science,

The question the Court had to answer was NOT what the science said. The question was what the representatives in the Legislative Branch wrote into law, *whether scientifically sound or not* as that's how the democratic process works in the US.

We are free to elect lawmakers that make laws following science or not, but if we do elect unscientific lawmakers, well, it's not an unelected court's role in our system to override the representative system.

@Beats4Life

Yes, the justices agreed unanimously that the EPA was never granted the authority that it claimed, even if justices had differences of opinion about where to draw the line in response.

The Clean Water Act simply never authorized what the EPA said it did.

Which of course legislation can fix if it needs to be fixed. And now it can be done properly and legally.
@memeorandum

@CDunnPasadena

The current Congress didn't pass the legislation setting up this dangerous situation. That was the last one. This Congress has already voted on a cleanup of the mess, though.

So you have that story backwards.

As for implications, also keep in mind that any Congress might not be particularly interested in sanctioning a president who tries to bypass the coequal branch, and breaks the law to issue debt that threatens US debt in general.

If the purchasers of that debt have to take a haircut in order to protect checks and balances, well, Congress might be pretty interested in that outcome.

@newsopinionsandviews@masto.ai

@RichStein

There's little sense taking the time to go through the legislative process on these bills when so much will depend on how the debt ceiling conflict plays out.

The one will impact the other.

So it seems reasonable not to spend days working on legislation that would be outdated before the voting even gets to the LOC.

@shades

Oh, I misread your previous comment. I see what you're saying now.

Firstly, DOES this law apply only to counties with high populations? I believe I read about another that had such language, but as I skim this one, I think it might be a different law. I don't see the magic number, but feel free to correct me by quoting the limitation.

I only see general "a county office administering elections" and a search for "million" also came up blank.

But to the point, it may be that the legislature wants to focus resources where they will have the biggest impact. I don't know the details of how TX organizes its small and large elections.

The law also doesn't let the partisan decide that. It requires investigation that can be challenged and overseen by courts, given the specific protections of the law.

This law is not the blank check some excited reporters present it as.

@kevin

Or alternatively respect the democratic process an stop trying to get around the rule of law simply because the president isn't being given the power he's demanding.

A much better way forward, I'd say.

@ryanlcooper

@Beats4Life

That gets it backwards, though.

The issue is that those wetlands were never protected by the Act in the first place, so this had been the federal government claiming authority over twice as many (much?) wetland as the legislative branch ever authorized.

If we want to expand federal power like that, it needs to go through the democratic process.

@memeorandum