>Garbage ruling from the least democratic branch of government in the US.

Is... that meant to be a bad thing? Yes, judicial branch should not be directly accountable to voters. In fact, as a Canadian, I find the idea of electing judges to be so thoroughly strange that it almost defies belief. Why the hell would you want your judicial branch to be "democratic", as in directly and immediately beholden to the whims of the mob? It should be behind layers of indirection, only generally accountable to the voters, and with a long lag to boot.

In Wisconsin, where I live, certain judicial offices are elected. Judicial elections are as nakedly partisan as you might fear, and it fosters no confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Based on my understanding (as a generally conservative libertarian), many decisions are predicated on conservative political promises and ideology, rather than any sound legal reasoning.

But at least you know judges political affiliation, officially. The worst thing is when judges try to hide it, pretending to be impartial, objective, basically demigods free of typical human flaws.

>In fact, as a Canadian, I find the idea of electing judges to be so thoroughly strange that it almost defies belief. Why the hell would you want your judicial branch to be "democratic", as in directly and immediately beholden to the whims of the mob?

As a Briton I agree. It's also why I'm quite sceptical of the concrete benefits of a directly elected House of Lords and the replacement of the monarchy with a presidential system which are popular ideas in some political circles. I'm no fan ideologically of the trappings of a landed gentry and there's plenty of room for heavy reforms there but having a strictly apolitical head of state and a semi-technocratic oversight body has its advantages. Democracy isn't necessarily measured by the amount of government positions which are directly or indirectly elected - there's more nuances than that.

There's a quiet and small (there are tens of us! Tens, I say!) group of Americans who aren't so sure de facto direct election of the President is a good idea (in fact, it isn't direct, and wasn't intended to be, but in effect sort-of is direct, because the system wasn't set up to defend against what amounts to a variety of attacks on it that broke it almost immediately and gave us what we still have today, which is a worst-of-both-worlds hybrid) or that changing our Senate so that they're directly elected was the right move.

Is having judges be only accountable to politicians and unclear financial interests pulling the strings be that much better?

They are not accountable to politicians though, not on a continuous basis. They are appointed by politicians for a fixed or life term. This is the important difference - elect politicians to well-paid full-time jobs of (among other things) appointing judges and prosecutors, and then let them spend the time doing it right, and then don't have those judges/prosecutors have to continuously be checking in with what the voters or the politicians who appointed them want, in the moment. That last part is key.

But yes, if you have garbage politicians they will at some point start appointing garbage judges, garbage crown attorneys, etc. and the system breaks down. So, like, get better politicians (by which I really mean become better voters).

It shouldn't be democratic, but for a non-democratic institution, the Supreme Court in the U.S. has outsized power at a level not originally intended in the constitution.

Agreed. The judiciary should be the least accountable and most transparent branch of government.

I have no idea what you mean. The judges blocked only one course of action, so they aren't removing the ability of the government to do anything.

Also, they explicitly said that Congress should do it, as our elected representatives. That's basically putting the authority where it belongs, if it exists. That's not about preventing government from doing anything.

And what's wrong with dismantling the administrative state? Many industries are already over-regulated because there are so many agencies, so many rules, and often, those rules conflict. The administrative state is a hindrance to progress and innovation because it keeps new players from entering the field.

Why do you think that "dismantling" it will lead to ruin?

How large should the administrative state get?

We have unelected officials who are making decisions against the will of the people. The entire system is too large for any person to affect change. That is why we see “crises;” they allow people to focus the group onto a crisis. In normal times, the entire industry reverts to how can they increase their size..

please provide evidence to support this claim:

"We have unelected officials who are making decisions against the will of the people."

did you vote for Ajit Pai?

I voted for the guy who nominated Pai as a commissioner and against the guy who nominated Pai to be the chairman and I voted for two senators who voted against his nomination to be chairman. I also voted for the guy who kicked his ass to the curb.

I didn't vote for the guys who made the decision to buy the F35, who audited my tax return, or who wrote the manual on uniform traffic control devices (and among all of these I have the most beef with them). But I voted for and against their bosses. I really really don't want my local mail carrier being an elected position, I and you and they have better things to do.

this country isn't a direct democracy, lets not act like it should be just when we disagree with the actions of those elected. These arguments are simply asinine because you know damn well this isn't how things work or were meant to work. You don't like the rule written by one 'unelected' lawyer in the executive branch so you are happy with it being overturned by another 'unelected' lawyer in the judicial branch...

and i'll add to my own comment because honestly this line of argument just infuriates me.

define 'made the decision'. Who made the decision by your estiamtion? was it the president who directed aides to implement a vaccine mandate? was it the aid who decided it was most appropriate to do through CMS? was it the head of CMS who directed individuals in his organization? Was it the person who actually fired up microsoft word and WROTE the text? The person who published the final rule?

Your argument is a straw man to try and give the veneer of a high minded process complaint to something you simply disagree with on substance. It is characteristic of certain groups and it is unfortunately rarely actively critiqued. It has become common place and is fundamentally disruptive to productive discourse.

The “least democratic branch”, as you say, just blocked a very undemocratic order in favor of just using the democratic process and going through congress.

Not sure what you’re complaining about. You seem to both want more and less democracy at the same time. Just because the president is elected doesn’t make him a king, and doesn’t make anything he does democratic.

The party that claimed to be anti-authoritarian has suddenly become the party demanding authoritarianism.

You’ve pretty much given the best argument possible for separation of powers that the Founding Fathers put in place.

I don’t think that’s what you intended, but thank you!

Fortunately we are a multi-layered system of government and your State's Governor may be able to direct some public health response tailored to your State's unique needs. I think this was the correct ruling and I can not understand why someone would want the President of the United States to be able to direct my medical treatment. Or is it that only particular Presidents would be able to execute this power, how do you control that?

Good. Courts aren't democratic on purpose, they exist to interpret the law as enacted. "The courts should rule based solely on what the law says and not what some people with an agenda wish it meant" shouldn't be a partisan issue but apparently it is these days.

If you don't like the law, get Congress to change it.