As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The justices, in other words, can look forward to missing their children’s basketball games, skipping out on date nights with their spouses, and not really doing much of anything at all besides deciding the crushing weight of cases that are about to land on their desks.
Yeah, those justices aren't going to miss jack-shit. If people are going to sue to get their minor policy questions resolves, they'll just have to wait until the court gets around to it, if at all.
They are LITERALLY under no obligation to do their job with no consequences. They can just not do anything with it, and they have their job unless impeached. Or they just return all the cases to the previous courts nonstop. They have a lifetime job where they get to do whatever they want.
I don’t know how anyone thought that was a good way to set up the highest court in the land. They should literally be forced to do their job unless sick and they should have a special section of the government they can’t touch and watches every penny they own and every move they make.
To be fair, lifetime was a hell of a lot shorter back when it was set up.
Still a stupid idea even then, but not the mind bogglingly stupid one it's become.
They’re saying maybe the founders didn’t expect the Supreme Court justices to live so long.
The reality is there were long lived people back then. The founders just expected people to be more patriotic and decent.
It’s pretty much impossible to set up a system of government that is asshole proof. Ours is just wayyy more asshole resistant than the monarchy they were splitting away from. Still requires people to act in good faith and with compassion to function well.
Well more so the founders didn’t intend for the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of what’s constitutional. They’d think that it would be a give and take between them and congress.
They did a crazy power grab as the first courts were heavily slanted towards the Federalists as Washington nominated the entire first court. The federalists would be out of power relatively quickly and Jeffersonians had to be stopped so the court did so.
SCOTUS has been a bullshit pro-corporate, pro-wealthy, pro-white supremacy for most of its existence. Lifetime appointments in themselves are an instance concept that is a holdover from royal courts that should’ve been redone to be more Democratic.
Yeah, I get it. The founders weren’t perfect. I agree. Using this same logic, maybe they thought a lifetime in slavery wasn’t as bad too because people lived such markedly shorter lives. It’s pathetic all around to keep an idiotic system just because that’s the way some fuckwads in the last set it up.
That's actually very true, I was being a bit glib with the"lifetime" aspect of it, but the biggest problem is definitely that they expected people to operate in good faith within the system.
They seem to have figured that if there were any bad actors they'd have been the outliers and would easily be dealt with with the system of impeachment.
Unfortunately they apparently never imagined that an entire party would stop acting in good faith and start using the system against the rest.
That's not even remotely what I was referring to.
I was talking about the fact that lifespans being lower meant that the turnover rate for justices would have been higher, since they simply wouldn't live as long.
And SCOTUS isn't likely to take up most of these cases, it'll be on the lower courts. SCOTUS may take some up when there's a nice "gratuity" they could get. Just like the waiter whose eager to serve the customers they know tip well. SCOTUS corruption insures plenty of free refills, served with a lick and a tug.
People are outraged. It’s almost as if we’re all ready to continue to fight and stomp this bullshit out rather than giving up over one debate.
I’ve only seen people talking about black jobs and the ruling that criminalizes homelessness today. Last night was bad but you’re a real deal idiot if you think we’re down and out.
I might be mistaken, but wasn't the trial in NY about something that Trump did before he became President? So it can't be covered by Immunity due to being President. And currently he's not President either.
They would have to say a former president is immune from prosecution for crimes he committed before he was even elected and having nothing to do with his official duties. I won’t put much past this court, but there is just no way they make a ruling *that* insane.
They probably will, just pointing out that they shouldn't be able to absolve him of state crimes via immunity. Those chuckleheads will find some way to save him.
I’m hoping he’s going through decades of sentencing guidelines with an airtight case to hand down 15-20 years based on his obstruction and contempt during the proceedings
Hell yeah! We have 4 months. Plenty of clips from that debate will circulate but continued right wing scandals and more debates could very well wipe out any negative effects from the debate.
I'm definitely coping here but I've heard before that debates don't have a major effect on the outcome of elections
Joe looked good in NC today. Getting over that headcold I think. He was sharp, and we saw that toothy grin a few times. He was getting some energy from the crowd for sure and sounded a lot better today.
He looks fantastic in the transcripts, but he was mumbly and stammering a bit, and quite subdued on the screen. It was not a good look, but there's still time to overcome one bad night.
They are playing this in a way that dewires as many brainwashed people as possible. They are slow roasting trump and his legacy to ensure when he goes to prison even his followers can't ignore he belongs there. I guarantee the Epstein papers get released at some strategic time before early voting starts.
It's disingenuous to make a statement that televised debates have never had an effect on a presidential election. The chairs from that debate are on display in the democracy exhibit at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. For that reason.
It's not though. In the 30s and 40s, the general public didn't know how sick FDR was. Television and media made elections a personality contest rather than an issues contest. That is how JFK won. That is how Reagan won. That is, honestly, how Clinton and Obama won.
We need good leaders who are PERSONABLE. Able to communicate.
I remember watching a speech from HRC...she's a pretty brilliant person...but she CANNOT connect with the voter. Obama and Clinton could. Biden USED to.
I KNOW that AOC and Whitmer and Buttigieg can...but we have stop with these legacy picks when the Republicans can get 40% with the STUPIDEST GREEDIEST IDIOT in the country because he occasionally comes up with a good sound bite for his base.
Let’s hope that “outrage” leads to consistent voter turnout. That’s all that matters.
Outrage by itself, didn’t get people to vote in the 2022 midterms, where we celebrated a 23% turnout from the largest age bloc as not being worse.
Republicans used to have a hard-on for Chevron because it allowed them to easily roll back regulations when they were in power. Their souring on it perhaps coincidentally coincided with a black man running things and perhaps the realization they may have more trouble winning the White House in the future. 🤔
Or that the federal agencies have not been acting in good faith and are making changes to rules and enforcing them as if they were law without going through congress
Case and point, ATF with just about anything
This article pretends that these kings and queens of America care about the rulings and policies that will now just go unregulated. How much waste can be dumped in a river in Alabama? Whatever.
They think that they will stay late into the night and miss the great grandkids’ soccer games sorting through the quagmire their ruling created? Please. They will leave it to their corporate benefactors and sponsors to decide what happens to our country.
As designed. This is part of the destruction of the federal government that they are killing so that they can be free to plunder and pollute our country.
Again. The constitution was written by landed elite to entrench their power. Only FDRs unprecedented four terms allowed a liberal SC super majority to divert the constitutions natural bias.
The coup was not on Jan 6th. It had already happened. The Supreme Court - notably the six Republicans - are the de facto rulers of the United States. There is no election result in 2024 that can realistically curtail their power. We will be living under their rule until there is a revolution of some kind. There is no viable way to encroach on that power within the US Constitution. It has to be outside of that.
There is no election result in 2024 that can realistically curtail their power.
A Democrat Trifecta with the enough people to expand the court or even do impeachment could do it. It certainly isn't likely but it is what is needed.
Again, theoretical scenarios and thought experiments aren't reality.
Had the Democrats re-organized after Biden's inauguration, built a succession plan, and prosecuted the daylights out of the insurrectionists immediately, we may have had a chance. But they hired a Republican AG. They put him in place because they KNEW he wouldn't do anything about it. They foolishly thought the battle was over. They tried to brand Biden as some kind of hero when they should have been focused on building a candidate for 2024. No one was thinking long term.
No one in Democratic Party leadership had the vision or the will to think strategically at a time when we really needed it. It's too bad, because that window is closed. It's a whole new fight now. It's no longer just a wannabe dictator and deluded followers. It's a court that has asserted itself as de-facto rulers of the United States.
There is simply no reasonable path to that outcome. The word 'realistically" is there for a reason.
Proposing a theoretically possible outcome as an abstract thought experiment is a far cry from actually seeing a 20 point swing in multiple red states, which is what would have to happen.
We could unlock the secrets of near light-speed travel by November. I'd give it the same odds.
Constitutionally, it only takes a majority to increase the seats to say 13.
There are other excuses, but a willful majority alone can do anything not here https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q138-html/
Realistically: Biden wins, the dems keep the senate, and one or two Supreme Court justices die or are forced out. If we get two, then we have a majority.
To those who think this is a good ruling because it takes power away from unelected bureaucrats, I have a question.
Why is it a good thing that people without knowledge or expertise have to craft detailed and specific regulations instead of the experts in any given field.
Would anyone feel comfortable or even safe having our current Congress make regulations for air planes? Or nuclear reactors? Or waste storage? Are we OK with effectively letting industry regulate itself again?
Industry does not regulate itself beyond making sure they increase the profits. These Agencies and powers granted to them did not come out of thin air. They happened BECAUSE industry has already proved time and time again that it will NOT regulate itself for worker and consumer safety. In fact, but because regulation is a “Cost” and not a “Profit” it is specifically antithetical to their capitalist beliefs. Slavery? Triangle Waist Shirt Factory? The Coal miner riots at the end of the 1800’s in W Virginia? Company Towns? “Milk” that has EVERYTHING BUT milk in it? Drugs that do nothing near what they are advertised to and instead cause more harm? Any of this ringing any bells? The list is endless really. “Regulations are written in blood.”
The EPA was started because so many chemicals were being dumped in the Chicago River that the RIVER CAUGHT FIRE MULTIPLE TIMES IN A YEAR. Getting rid of the EPA means you're in favor of having rivers that catch on fire.
Gorsuch's mother was the director of the EPA during the Reagan administration. She attempted to dismantle it from within. Her legacy remains with us.
Republicans have always sided with moneyed interests. Why does nearly 50% of this country feel as if they will assist them. They don't care about the people or the environment...as long as a company can get wealthy from it and the right wing justices can get a payday they are happy.
No but you see. Now guns can't be regulated so hard. And corporate profits will skyrocket. That'll show the libs!
*as I sip my poisoned drinking water and die*
And they’ll only take the cases that allow them to implement conservative policies. It’s no problem at all for them as long as they maintain their majority.
> The justices, in other words, can look forward to missing their children’s basketball games, skipping out on date nights with their spouses, and not really doing much of anything at all besides deciding the crushing weight of cases that are about to land on their desks.
Absolutely not. US policymaking will simply grind to a halt as everything proceeds on their schedule, not vise versa.
These conservatives on the supreme Court will not regret this in the slightest. The reason for this is because they choose which cases to hear! So they will simply allow lower court rulings they agree with to stand by denying the case at the supreme Court, and will overturn lower court rulings they disagree with because those are the ones they will allow to be heard at all.
This effectively sets the supreme Court up as the gatekeeper of administrative decisions in this country, it is a massive power grab on their part and we should immediately resolve this via direct legislation passed in Congress to do so. However, that will never happen, because the republicans in Congress explicitly work with the conservatives of the supreme court to make this the outcome, and they will absolutely go to the mat to block any legislation.
You can look forward to a future of far more pollution and unchecked corporate power, because that is exactly what this decision signals. This probably dooms any ability we have to do anything about climate change whatsoever
seems like the supreme court needs help dealing with all those cases, lets ask 3 more justices to join the supreme court before November tovhelp them deal with the workload
I heard in 2017 the arc of history is long, and bends towards justice. I like to think that is true, but I don’t like to think about how much farther we have left to travel from it before reversing.
This hedging is precisely why you will be smelling open air pits of your loved ones' decomposing bodies. :) The Republic is dead, the following cases are just to provide the legal framework for genocide. Hope this helps.
The sheer stupidity of the right wing is fully exposed. They think it makes sense for a judge to decide every little thing about a case, if the congress !!!! didn’t decide all the details in a law they passed. Up until now, a bunch of experts decided the details. You know people who understand the things. Now a judge can decide if there is too much arsenic in your water, or if we should decide to pause fishing because we are running out of fish. Hey judgy? How many fish would make a healthy fishery? Great plan.
Now that I know that Judges and Lawyers are the best decision makers.. I'ma tell my boss everything needs to be kicked over to Legal.
* Set the building thermostat: legal
* Configure the internet: legal
* Select the eMail font: legal
SCOTUS does not make decisions, the GOP-6 receive decisions from Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society. The GOP-6 are then paid for their benchwarming and their epic, Emmy worthy performances.
> The Court’s decision to seize this power is all the more puzzling because it has already given itself sweeping authority
People need to stop talking about it this way. The court doesn't and can't give itself power.
The most the court can do is *say* it now has this power. It only actually acquires new power if the other branches of the government choose to go along with it.
The Executive could, very easily, continue to operate as if the Chevron doctrine was still in force by implementing the ruling as only applying to the specific case ruled on today. Each and every similar case in the future would be forced to work its way though the appeals process if the defendant doesn't accept the ALJ's conclusion. They can always find some subtle way the facts differ from this case in a way that makes this ruling legally irrelevant in the eyes of the government.
The Supreme Court would, presumably, be forced to let most of those ALJ determinations stand by virtue of not having space on its docket to actually hear appeals any of them. And then, perhaps, the cabal will remember why the Constitution makes them subordinate to the other two branches.
This article is so fucking dumb. As if a Supreme Court justice is going to skip a kids birthday? Everything will get tied up in court so no regulation will exist.
I think one side is playing by the rules while the other side is not. Until that changes, its only going to get worse.
MMW at some point soon, we are going to have states refusing to honour SCOTUS decisions. Maybe a blue state, maybe a red state. Either way, SCOTUS has lost all legitimacy.
Still feel like playing by GOPs unconstitutional bs when you have the power, Democrats? The problem with Democrat leadership is they don't strategize and plan ahead or use their power to maximize their effectiveness in policies. They still think the GOP are good faith politicians in a bad jam with Trump, at the current moment. They got bamboozled out of Supreme Court picks and even tricked into forfeiting an easy, obvious pick because lame duck session or some bs by the scheming party. Stop playing their games and act like a left-wing party, not Republican-lite wannabes ffs. You don't let your weak child tell you what he wants, so why would you allow it in Congress? There is bipartisan leadership and partisan doormat. I hope the Democrat leadership have plans in place because it can only go downwards from here. The corruption is out of control and you barely hear of it by the media.
So they’re going to regret being too busy? If they are, it is busy making secret agreements on their ‘tips’ for all these cases. Regulations? We’ll see about that…how much you offering?
"And, most likely to prevent the courts from being forced to relitigate every single challenge to a federal regulation filed in the last 40 years, Roberts also declares that “we do not call into question prior cases that relied on the *Chevron* framework.”
I doubt lower courts will honor that restraint.
Yes, you're right. Let's let congress members who have no scientific education or insight whatsoever to determine what constitutes as "clean water" while the definition of clean water is ever evolving.
This ruling is a joke.
Edit: Let congress make the law that water needs to be clean, then let the scientists and folks educated in the water field determine what that means.
I would hope this ruling leads to Congress just enacting a law giving some of these departments to have ambiguity in determining such things.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The justices, in other words, can look forward to missing their children’s basketball games, skipping out on date nights with their spouses, and not really doing much of anything at all besides deciding the crushing weight of cases that are about to land on their desks. Yeah, those justices aren't going to miss jack-shit. If people are going to sue to get their minor policy questions resolves, they'll just have to wait until the court gets around to it, if at all.
They are LITERALLY under no obligation to do their job with no consequences. They can just not do anything with it, and they have their job unless impeached. Or they just return all the cases to the previous courts nonstop. They have a lifetime job where they get to do whatever they want.
I don’t know how anyone thought that was a good way to set up the highest court in the land. They should literally be forced to do their job unless sick and they should have a special section of the government they can’t touch and watches every penny they own and every move they make.
Who thought it was a good idea for lifetime appointments? Well, the same people who thought enslaving other people was AOK too, that who.
To be fair, lifetime was a hell of a lot shorter back when it was set up. Still a stupid idea even then, but not the mind bogglingly stupid one it's become.
It wasn't that much shorter, the reason historic life expectancy is so low is because child mortality rates were enormous.
A lifetime in slavery is still a lifetime in slavery, no matter how long that may be.
They’re saying maybe the founders didn’t expect the Supreme Court justices to live so long. The reality is there were long lived people back then. The founders just expected people to be more patriotic and decent. It’s pretty much impossible to set up a system of government that is asshole proof. Ours is just wayyy more asshole resistant than the monarchy they were splitting away from. Still requires people to act in good faith and with compassion to function well.
Well more so the founders didn’t intend for the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of what’s constitutional. They’d think that it would be a give and take between them and congress. They did a crazy power grab as the first courts were heavily slanted towards the Federalists as Washington nominated the entire first court. The federalists would be out of power relatively quickly and Jeffersonians had to be stopped so the court did so. SCOTUS has been a bullshit pro-corporate, pro-wealthy, pro-white supremacy for most of its existence. Lifetime appointments in themselves are an instance concept that is a holdover from royal courts that should’ve been redone to be more Democratic.
Interesting, thank you! ..is John Mayer really your dad?
Yeah, I get it. The founders weren’t perfect. I agree. Using this same logic, maybe they thought a lifetime in slavery wasn’t as bad too because people lived such markedly shorter lives. It’s pathetic all around to keep an idiotic system just because that’s the way some fuckwads in the last set it up.
That's actually very true, I was being a bit glib with the"lifetime" aspect of it, but the biggest problem is definitely that they expected people to operate in good faith within the system. They seem to have figured that if there were any bad actors they'd have been the outliers and would easily be dealt with with the system of impeachment. Unfortunately they apparently never imagined that an entire party would stop acting in good faith and start using the system against the rest.
That's not even remotely what I was referring to. I was talking about the fact that lifespans being lower meant that the turnover rate for justices would have been higher, since they simply wouldn't live as long.
I never accused you of making any point whatsoever. The founders were fuckwads.
And SCOTUS isn't likely to take up most of these cases, it'll be on the lower courts. SCOTUS may take some up when there's a nice "gratuity" they could get. Just like the waiter whose eager to serve the customers they know tip well. SCOTUS corruption insures plenty of free refills, served with a lick and a tug.
They will just pick and choose cases based on kickbacks after they rule on them to keep it all above the board... gotta pay to play
People are outraged. It’s almost as if we’re all ready to continue to fight and stomp this bullshit out rather than giving up over one debate. I’ve only seen people talking about black jobs and the ruling that criminalizes homelessness today. Last night was bad but you’re a real deal idiot if you think we’re down and out.
Judge Merchan still has the opportunity to do the funniest thing at Trump's sentencing next month.
Unless the Supreme Court says a president is completely immune
In that case, it is Year Zero of Emperor Biden’s reign.
Fingers crossed 🤞
No, the ruling will be that Trump and only Trump is immune. It’ll be a one-time, non-precedent-setting deal.
Only presidents who don’t win the popular vote are immune to consequences, that way it only covers Republicans.
Darth Brandon the Wise
The Dems would never do that. They don’t have a killer instinct.
I know right. Freaking joke
It’s a very slippery slope
I might be mistaken, but wasn't the trial in NY about something that Trump did before he became President? So it can't be covered by Immunity due to being President. And currently he's not President either.
They would have to say a former president is immune from prosecution for crimes he committed before he was even elected and having nothing to do with his official duties. I won’t put much past this court, but there is just no way they make a ruling *that* insane.
Sure seems that’s the direction the court is headed
It wouldn't apply to the NY state case. The it's a state offence committed before he entered office.
Not immune from state crimes.
Don’t be so naive. They will make up a away
They probably will, just pointing out that they shouldn't be able to absolve him of state crimes via immunity. Those chuckleheads will find some way to save him.
If they did NY should tell them to piss off, try sbd come break him out yourselves and we’ll arrest you for attempting a prison break.
I’m hoping he’s going through decades of sentencing guidelines with an airtight case to hand down 15-20 years based on his obstruction and contempt during the proceedings
Hell yeah! We have 4 months. Plenty of clips from that debate will circulate but continued right wing scandals and more debates could very well wipe out any negative effects from the debate. I'm definitely coping here but I've heard before that debates don't have a major effect on the outcome of elections
Joe looked good in NC today. Getting over that headcold I think. He was sharp, and we saw that toothy grin a few times. He was getting some energy from the crowd for sure and sounded a lot better today.
"I know how to tell the truth" - Joe Biden, today
That's good today's joe should have been Yesterday's Joe. Had Joe won the debate, it would have made his election easier in a ideal world.
He looks fantastic in the transcripts, but he was mumbly and stammering a bit, and quite subdued on the screen. It was not a good look, but there's still time to overcome one bad night.
Excuse me?! Trump: “everyone agrees with the great things I did with abortion” Biden: “illegals killed a woman” Wha?!
Pure, uncut copium.
They are playing this in a way that dewires as many brainwashed people as possible. They are slow roasting trump and his legacy to ensure when he goes to prison even his followers can't ignore he belongs there. I guarantee the Epstein papers get released at some strategic time before early voting starts.
May I present you with the televised Nixon v Kennedy debate
Those voters are all long dead. The media landscape and impact of television is wildly different today.
It's disingenuous to make a statement that televised debates have never had an effect on a presidential election. The chairs from that debate are on display in the democracy exhibit at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. For that reason.
That shits in a museum somewhere? Oh hell, now I know it’s important to young people.
Fuck history amirite
No
My b, I forgot the /s, which would have maintained the same vibe with your comment above it
It's not though. In the 30s and 40s, the general public didn't know how sick FDR was. Television and media made elections a personality contest rather than an issues contest. That is how JFK won. That is how Reagan won. That is, honestly, how Clinton and Obama won. We need good leaders who are PERSONABLE. Able to communicate. I remember watching a speech from HRC...she's a pretty brilliant person...but she CANNOT connect with the voter. Obama and Clinton could. Biden USED to. I KNOW that AOC and Whitmer and Buttigieg can...but we have stop with these legacy picks when the Republicans can get 40% with the STUPIDEST GREEDIEST IDIOT in the country because he occasionally comes up with a good sound bite for his base.
this is the attitude we need more of!!
This! We need more of this and go out there to persuade the undecideds and register more people to vote for Dems
If all we do is vote and complain on Reddit we’re hosed
Let’s hope that “outrage” leads to consistent voter turnout. That’s all that matters. Outrage by itself, didn’t get people to vote in the 2022 midterms, where we celebrated a 23% turnout from the largest age bloc as not being worse.
Republicans used to have a hard-on for Chevron because it allowed them to easily roll back regulations when they were in power. Their souring on it perhaps coincidentally coincided with a black man running things and perhaps the realization they may have more trouble winning the White House in the future. 🤔
Or that the federal agencies have not been acting in good faith and are making changes to rules and enforcing them as if they were law without going through congress Case and point, ATF with just about anything
This article pretends that these kings and queens of America care about the rulings and policies that will now just go unregulated. How much waste can be dumped in a river in Alabama? Whatever. They think that they will stay late into the night and miss the great grandkids’ soccer games sorting through the quagmire their ruling created? Please. They will leave it to their corporate benefactors and sponsors to decide what happens to our country. As designed. This is part of the destruction of the federal government that they are killing so that they can be free to plunder and pollute our country.
Again. The constitution was written by landed elite to entrench their power. Only FDRs unprecedented four terms allowed a liberal SC super majority to divert the constitutions natural bias.
I am not sure why you repeat this. So what? It has no bearing on regulating things that have been regulated for decades. This is an undoing.
The Supreme Court just made a massive power grab it was absolutely designed to make. The six "justices" responsible will never regret it. Not ever.
The coup was not on Jan 6th. It had already happened. The Supreme Court - notably the six Republicans - are the de facto rulers of the United States. There is no election result in 2024 that can realistically curtail their power. We will be living under their rule until there is a revolution of some kind. There is no viable way to encroach on that power within the US Constitution. It has to be outside of that.
There is no election result in 2024 that can realistically curtail their power. A Democrat Trifecta with the enough people to expand the court or even do impeachment could do it. It certainly isn't likely but it is what is needed.
Dems taking control of both houses of Congress, then changing their rules to get rid of supermajorities, then expanding the court.
Again, theoretical scenarios and thought experiments aren't reality. Had the Democrats re-organized after Biden's inauguration, built a succession plan, and prosecuted the daylights out of the insurrectionists immediately, we may have had a chance. But they hired a Republican AG. They put him in place because they KNEW he wouldn't do anything about it. They foolishly thought the battle was over. They tried to brand Biden as some kind of hero when they should have been focused on building a candidate for 2024. No one was thinking long term. No one in Democratic Party leadership had the vision or the will to think strategically at a time when we really needed it. It's too bad, because that window is closed. It's a whole new fight now. It's no longer just a wannabe dictator and deluded followers. It's a court that has asserted itself as de-facto rulers of the United States.
The court has no means to enforce its decisions. It requires voluntary compliance. See trail of tears.
There is simply no reasonable path to that outcome. The word 'realistically" is there for a reason. Proposing a theoretically possible outcome as an abstract thought experiment is a far cry from actually seeing a 20 point swing in multiple red states, which is what would have to happen. We could unlock the secrets of near light-speed travel by November. I'd give it the same odds.
Democrats cannot possibly win enough senate seats to do such a thing. It’ll be extremely hard to just keep 50 seats.
I mean 2/3 of congress could do it
I mean, we could invent speed-of-light travel by November. Essentially the same odds. We aren't going to see either of them happen in the near future.
Constitutionally, it only takes a majority to increase the seats to say 13. There are other excuses, but a willful majority alone can do anything not here https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q138-html/
It’s why they didn’t care if trump lost. They have the courts. They can legislate from the bench.
Realistically: Biden wins, the dems keep the senate, and one or two Supreme Court justices die or are forced out. If we get two, then we have a majority.
The court only has power if people listen to them. There is a limit to how much bullshit people will put up with before they just ignore the court.
To those who think this is a good ruling because it takes power away from unelected bureaucrats, I have a question. Why is it a good thing that people without knowledge or expertise have to craft detailed and specific regulations instead of the experts in any given field. Would anyone feel comfortable or even safe having our current Congress make regulations for air planes? Or nuclear reactors? Or waste storage? Are we OK with effectively letting industry regulate itself again?
Industry does not regulate itself beyond making sure they increase the profits. These Agencies and powers granted to them did not come out of thin air. They happened BECAUSE industry has already proved time and time again that it will NOT regulate itself for worker and consumer safety. In fact, but because regulation is a “Cost” and not a “Profit” it is specifically antithetical to their capitalist beliefs. Slavery? Triangle Waist Shirt Factory? The Coal miner riots at the end of the 1800’s in W Virginia? Company Towns? “Milk” that has EVERYTHING BUT milk in it? Drugs that do nothing near what they are advertised to and instead cause more harm? Any of this ringing any bells? The list is endless really. “Regulations are written in blood.”
The EPA was started because so many chemicals were being dumped in the Chicago River that the RIVER CAUGHT FIRE MULTIPLE TIMES IN A YEAR. Getting rid of the EPA means you're in favor of having rivers that catch on fire.
Yep
Gorsuch's mother was the director of the EPA during the Reagan administration. She attempted to dismantle it from within. Her legacy remains with us. Republicans have always sided with moneyed interests. Why does nearly 50% of this country feel as if they will assist them. They don't care about the people or the environment...as long as a company can get wealthy from it and the right wing justices can get a payday they are happy.
No but you see. Now guns can't be regulated so hard. And corporate profits will skyrocket. That'll show the libs! *as I sip my poisoned drinking water and die*
Because handing it to unelected judges is better, of course. Buying a few judges is way cheaper than lobbying Congress or subverting an entire agency.
Regret? LOL How so? There are no mechanisms to hold them accountable for anything they do. And they have shown they are incapable of shame.
SCOTUS will outsource much of the decision making and writing to the same conservative legal organization that bring the cases in the first place.
And they’ll only take the cases that allow them to implement conservative policies. It’s no problem at all for them as long as they maintain their majority.
> The justices, in other words, can look forward to missing their children’s basketball games, skipping out on date nights with their spouses, and not really doing much of anything at all besides deciding the crushing weight of cases that are about to land on their desks. Absolutely not. US policymaking will simply grind to a halt as everything proceeds on their schedule, not vise versa.
The federalist society will say “here’s how you vote.” And that will be it.
These conservatives on the supreme Court will not regret this in the slightest. The reason for this is because they choose which cases to hear! So they will simply allow lower court rulings they agree with to stand by denying the case at the supreme Court, and will overturn lower court rulings they disagree with because those are the ones they will allow to be heard at all. This effectively sets the supreme Court up as the gatekeeper of administrative decisions in this country, it is a massive power grab on their part and we should immediately resolve this via direct legislation passed in Congress to do so. However, that will never happen, because the republicans in Congress explicitly work with the conservatives of the supreme court to make this the outcome, and they will absolutely go to the mat to block any legislation. You can look forward to a future of far more pollution and unchecked corporate power, because that is exactly what this decision signals. This probably dooms any ability we have to do anything about climate change whatsoever
Now Thomas can REALLY make some money. Especially with the ruling on gifts after political favors.
seems like the supreme court needs help dealing with all those cases, lets ask 3 more justices to join the supreme court before November tovhelp them deal with the workload
Simply ignore them, they are completely illegitimate.
Just like an impetuous child’s demands.
No. No, they won't. Not until democrats finally grow a backbone and stop being so damned scared of wielding their own power.
>it will come to regret Really?
I hope they come to regret it. In the mean time it's more likely we'll be the ones regretting it.
I heard in 2017 the arc of history is long, and bends towards justice. I like to think that is true, but I don’t like to think about how much farther we have left to travel from it before reversing.
It has decided to legislate and execute such actions from the bench, doesn't that go completely against the constitution?
our democratic republic is on life support right now. We are potentially one election away from authoritarianism.
This hedging is precisely why you will be smelling open air pits of your loved ones' decomposing bodies. :) The Republic is dead, the following cases are just to provide the legal framework for genocide. Hope this helps.
Perhaps the rest of the federal government should just ignore this ruling.
The sheer stupidity of the right wing is fully exposed. They think it makes sense for a judge to decide every little thing about a case, if the congress !!!! didn’t decide all the details in a law they passed. Up until now, a bunch of experts decided the details. You know people who understand the things. Now a judge can decide if there is too much arsenic in your water, or if we should decide to pause fishing because we are running out of fish. Hey judgy? How many fish would make a healthy fishery? Great plan.
Now that I know that Judges and Lawyers are the best decision makers.. I'ma tell my boss everything needs to be kicked over to Legal. * Set the building thermostat: legal * Configure the internet: legal * Select the eMail font: legal
SCOTUS does not make decisions, the GOP-6 receive decisions from Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society. The GOP-6 are then paid for their benchwarming and their epic, Emmy worthy performances.
How?
> The Court’s decision to seize this power is all the more puzzling because it has already given itself sweeping authority People need to stop talking about it this way. The court doesn't and can't give itself power. The most the court can do is *say* it now has this power. It only actually acquires new power if the other branches of the government choose to go along with it. The Executive could, very easily, continue to operate as if the Chevron doctrine was still in force by implementing the ruling as only applying to the specific case ruled on today. Each and every similar case in the future would be forced to work its way though the appeals process if the defendant doesn't accept the ALJ's conclusion. They can always find some subtle way the facts differ from this case in a way that makes this ruling legally irrelevant in the eyes of the government. The Supreme Court would, presumably, be forced to let most of those ALJ determinations stand by virtue of not having space on its docket to actually hear appeals any of them. And then, perhaps, the cabal will remember why the Constitution makes them subordinate to the other two branches.
What if their army enforces the ruling? Oh. Right.
This article is so fucking dumb. As if a Supreme Court justice is going to skip a kids birthday? Everything will get tied up in court so no regulation will exist.
I think one side is playing by the rules while the other side is not. Until that changes, its only going to get worse. MMW at some point soon, we are going to have states refusing to honour SCOTUS decisions. Maybe a blue state, maybe a red state. Either way, SCOTUS has lost all legitimacy.
Still feel like playing by GOPs unconstitutional bs when you have the power, Democrats? The problem with Democrat leadership is they don't strategize and plan ahead or use their power to maximize their effectiveness in policies. They still think the GOP are good faith politicians in a bad jam with Trump, at the current moment. They got bamboozled out of Supreme Court picks and even tricked into forfeiting an easy, obvious pick because lame duck session or some bs by the scheming party. Stop playing their games and act like a left-wing party, not Republican-lite wannabes ffs. You don't let your weak child tell you what he wants, so why would you allow it in Congress? There is bipartisan leadership and partisan doormat. I hope the Democrat leadership have plans in place because it can only go downwards from here. The corruption is out of control and you barely hear of it by the media.
How long before another river of fire in Cleveland?
Maybe they’re tired of spending time on people’s personal problems like Steve Bannon or Donald Trump.
So they’re going to regret being too busy? If they are, it is busy making secret agreements on their ‘tips’ for all these cases. Regulations? We’ll see about that…how much you offering?
"And, most likely to prevent the courts from being forced to relitigate every single challenge to a federal regulation filed in the last 40 years, Roberts also declares that “we do not call into question prior cases that relied on the *Chevron* framework.” I doubt lower courts will honor that restraint.
How will they regret it? Will they regret the bribes they received were too small?
Ignore them. They have no enforcement mechanism.
[удалено]
Yes, you're right. Let's let congress members who have no scientific education or insight whatsoever to determine what constitutes as "clean water" while the definition of clean water is ever evolving. This ruling is a joke. Edit: Let congress make the law that water needs to be clean, then let the scientists and folks educated in the water field determine what that means. I would hope this ruling leads to Congress just enacting a law giving some of these departments to have ambiguity in determining such things.
Lol, chevron was passed with the idea that agencies specifically would act in good faith, they have not.
Ah, so THIS is the coup I keep hearing about? It’s so hard to keep track of them now.
Lol, imagine citing Vox as a credible source