(11-22-2022 11:52 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 11:45 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 11:21 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 10:49 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 10:44 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Yes! Which Tanq and I have said also -- many, many times.

Lad and 93, please get this through your heads: if you want to limit the influence of policy partisans on judges, the one - the only - sure way is to limit the influence of judges on policy. THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT CONCEPT that differentiates political "progressives" from political conservatives, nor is there anything that requires exceptional nobility or virtue (the red herring that Lad has trotted out). So why keep dishonestly claiming that anyone is insisting on such distinctions?

Honestly... seems sort of nebulous. How exactly do you propose doing that?

OTOH, how easy would it be to put in something in place like the Sunshine Act for doctors?

About as easy as it is to put in place and enforce laws to limit the influence of lobbyists on the people who approve nominations, I’d say.

I am 100% for limiting the influence of lobbyists in both cases. Are both examples too much micromanagement or no?

They both give the executive branch more power. How much is too much?