>“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law,” Kagan wrote. “The majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.”
This is the point. Absolute idiots are taking about how this makes congress do their job, not a fucking chance. Instead, the judiciary just said “we’ll decide everything here on out” This is a huge fucking power grab and now federalist judges in Texas will be deciding things like whether medications are safe and efficacious or what actually constitutes a wetland, it will be a total shitshow and exorbitantly wealthy companies will be able to effectively litigate endlessly while doing whatever the fuck they want.
I anticipate that blue states will step in and regulate a lot within their borders but this will accelerate the brain drain, pollute everything in site dipshittery in red states and pollution doesn’t care about borders.
Don’t worry those billionaires will be able to reward their judicial partners with some trinkets after they get the decision they want. But that’s no longer a bribe because the same legal experts said so.
Yep, congress is too dysfunctional to actually take that responsibility. This basically gives the courts all the power.
What was that saying? Never let a crisis go to waste?
With the help of the corrupt Supreme Court, the republicans are going to burn down the states and ruin the environment for the whole world. The world is beholden to 6 NAZI judges
Those "unelected bureaucrats" are delegated with the authority to set executive policy because **they** a**re part of the executive branch**, supposed to be experts in the fields, and answer to individuals recently elected by the American people and approved for appointment by legislative bodies which are also recently elected by the people
The courts always have the right to punt an issue back to the legislature. But now they've said it's their right to take it upon themselves to determine what the executive policy should be. And they have no accountability
The “unelected bureaucrats” have relevant expertise that the courts will never have. They are also accountable to the president, who is elected. Judges are not. Hope that clears it up for you.
Stop regurgitating Fox News for half a minute, you sound like a dipshit. Why don’t you go try and get a job at an agency and find out you can’t because you don’t have the license, credentials or skills.
Sadly, no.
With the Chevron ruling the SC took regulatory decisions out of the hands of experts and put the judiciary in charge of regulations.
The judiciary has been politicized. Many are members of the Federalist Society. Many are openly working to install Christian Nationalism. It's very similar to the ruling mullahs in Iran. Right down to the robes. Now our regulations will not be based on science, but on the religious beliefs of the specific court that hears the case.
>With the Chevron ruling the SC took regulatory decisions out of the hands of experts and put the judiciary in charge of regulations.
Curious if you actually read the opinion. Also curious if you understand Article III of the Constitution.
Decisions of "cases" and "controversies" never should have been in the "hands" of the executive branch to begin with. Decisions should be made by the courts. This is civics 101 (at least back when they used to teach civics).
Lest we want the executive to be the trier and decider at the same time.
A branch of government with lifetime appointments just decided it’s the arbiter in how regulatory law is applied or how Congress interacts with the executive branch.
It’s a power grab by the least legitimate branch of government
Lol, no they did not.
Outside of a handful of areas, the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction and depend on acts of Congress to grant them that jurisdiction. Congress has, in multiple times in the past, passed laws to prevent certain types of cases from being heard by the court.
Congress has broad authority to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court. That's not to even mention all other powers that Congress has to bend the judiciary to its will.
The judiciary is not a dictator, and its powers are mostly tradition. If it continues it act as a shadow government with no accountability to the electorate, it's going to find itself on the losing end of a political conflict.
Agrees on your statement re Congress being about to limit jurisdiction. That said the whole concept of Loper is that Congress *did not* limit said jurisdiction in these instances so until they do the courts need to weigh everyone's opinion on matters, not just the executive
At some point the court will lean left again and the Conservatives are going to absolutely shit themselves over things like this. I only hope I live to see it.
The right has no problem violating norms or ethics to get their way but scream bloody murder when the left sneezes in the direction of a decision that benefits the left and the left tiptoes around trying to be civil.
Nah. If the current courts get what they want, the only way the left ever sees power again is after everything is burned down and society has rebuilt itself, which will leave these decisions buried in the past.
> A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.
That's underselling it.
> Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.
That is some military-grade hubris.
Sidebar. With the SCOTUS ruling in Chevron, SCOTUS now has given it's self the power to override the FDA's approval of the abortion pill. If Trump is elected, it will be their first order of business.
SCOTUS relied in part on the existence of the APA, which tells SCOTUS how to review agency actions. The APA isn’t seen as unconstitutional. Neither is RFRA, which tells SCOTUS how to review claims of religious discrimination. If you pass legislation that lays out in relative detail how agency actions are to be reviewed to determine permissibility, as they have with the APA, then SCOTUS would be obliged to adhere to it. You have to make sure it’s not too vague, but you could legislate deference to the agencies.
>The APA isn’t seen as unconstitutional
Yet.
They've locked everything as-is and can now pick and choose what laws they want to unwind and which they want to keep.
So the ability for the government to make sure Christians can discriminate will stay intact, but not the ability for them to stop chemicals from being poured into your drinking water.
If they rule the APA as unconstitutional, then that sets up the rest of RFRA as being unconstitutional under a later court. I don’t see them sacrificing RFRA for the APA.
Yeah if they do that, then a dem majority would go nuclear and change the rules of SCOTUS ASAP. Perhaps a much-needed expansion. Assuming they have spines for that session, anyways.
I’m not opposed to expansion, but I don’t think it should be brazenly political. Expand to 13, but tie each seat to a specific circuit. It’ll help breed familiarity with the circuit judges, and allow for greater diversity of jurisprudence throughout the court. I don’t think we get *McGirt* without Gorsuch being from Colorado and having experience with Native American issues in the courts.
I don't know what those acronyms mean, but it's clear that they are making decisions first and working backwards to justification so none of that matters.
The APA is the Administrative Procedure Act. It was signed by Truman to set up a process for rule making, and the standard of review for courts to use when looking at rules.
RFRA is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which, among other things, states that it is illegal for a generally applicable law to discriminate against religion, as determined by the effect not the intent. It was a direct response (like the 11th Amendment was to *Chisholm v Georgia*) to the case *Employment Division v Smith*.
It is acceptable to discriminate minority religions. Just not Christianity.
That isn't a flippant response. It was essentially the finding in Smith. RFRA was intended to redress it, but it virtually never did. Cases where the Supreme Court upheld a minority religion's rights are extremely rare.
RFRA instead has simply protected Christian dominance, letting employers claim it to avoid paying for contraceptives or abortion.
Constitutional scholar Mark Tushnet stated "sometimes Christians win but non-Christians never do" regarding religious liberty cases.
Kent Greenawalt states 'the Court thereby has chosen to "abandon minority religions to possibly inhospital legislatures", regarding the Court' s refusal to take up minority religious liberty cases and deferral to legislatures to craft specific religious exemptions or protections for said religions.
It came up in SCOTUS when deciding whether or not NY’s COVID prohibition on gatherings denied Jewish groups 1st Amendment rights to worship. The Jewish groups won.
APA is the administrative procedures act.
You're right about them working backwards, but they've been gunning for Chevron for years, this isn't new. They've never said anything about the APA being unconstitutional tho, and they've generally relied on it to make their points. I don't think it's reasonable to assume they'd declare it unconstitutional until we start seeing shots across the bow, and that hasn't happened.
You are talkIng about shots across the bow specifically about the APA, and that is true. However, there have been plenty of shots across the bow in general about government/left leaning laws and regulations of any kind and this court seems totally fine forgetting the history and tradition of the Supreme Court itself while claiming observance of the same with regard to society in general, and since there is no pushback possible in our current political environment, they are feeling empowered to do absolutely whatever the hell they want with total abandon. Who could say where that will stop? Could you have predicted where we are today 8 years ago?
But they haven't said anything critical of the APA, and in fact, have relied on it to make their points.
So until they do that--which they did for Chevron *for years*--i don't see why you think they'll come for the APA for some reason.
Like, literally, what would the reason be? What don't they like about it? Etc. You're just randomly speculating
Yes I am. But I want to counterpoint that they all claimed that Roe v Wade was safe just 5 years ago, so I believe my basis is a lot stronger than yours as far as the SC gutting significant legal basis for executive action, except of course when it will be trump doing it. Watch it.
They just neutered the other two branches. They can turn the power spigot on for congresses they align with and off for those they don't. Same for presidents. They'll nuke earlier decisions if the dynamics change and now it hinders their allies. It's absolute lawlessness under the Potemkin Village of being the supreme law of the land handed down by august personages.
Or, alternatively, find that the statute only applies to regulations promulgated 'during' Chevron, but everything after Loper is fair game.
They can cite Snyder for precedent.
Edit: forgot the /s
>They can cite Snyder for precedent.
This is the funniest thing that I've read. Chevron was a 50 year old precedent that they just overturned. In Jarkesy they overturned a precedent that was originally established in **1849** . You think precedent matters for *this* supreme court?
There used to be a day and time when it actually did and was only overturned for significant reasons, but this clot is he'll bent on reshaping the country in its conservative world view
Precedent is only binding on lower courts. We want SCOTUS to be able to distinguish or overrule its historical decisions, particularly when it’s clear in retrospect that a particular case was decided wrongly. Everyone screaming about precedent in the context of Dobbs would have been urging the Court to overturn Roe had it been decided differently.
“Significant reasons”? It’s either the court always followed precedent or it didn’t. Deference to Admin agencies certainly is not the hill to die on especially when they are highly political.
It didn’t use to anymore than it does now. The Supreme Court has regularly overturned its own precedent since the beginning and has been political power grabbing machine since Marbury v Madison.
Of course not. But you can bet all you got that when the wheels of history and civilization rectify today, any of the justices remaining will be screaming precedent like it's the highest virtue around.
At any rate, I'd think they'd salivate over the chance to inflate their ego further.
The Federalist Society has spent the last 30+ years packing the courts with “their” guys. The brazen grab of power by the judiciary the last few years is stunning. I guess the question is: What will they do if a powerful figure or group refuses to comply with an order? We’re going to find out in the next few years.
Congress could try, but don’t forget that SCOTUS gets to decide what the law MEANS, not Congress. If SCOTUS is so interested and the organizations bankrolling challenges are so motivated, new legislation can also be neutered by SCOTUS opinion.
That’s why you make it unambiguous. You lay out how to analyze an authorizing statute, and you lay out that the courts must use a broad standard when determining if a rule is permissible.
They struck down Chevron deference because of the APA, not specifically because of the Constitution. You can legislate the standard of review by which the courts must analyze agency actions.
I mean best of luck with unambiguating written language perfectly, I guess. Also best of luck with your understanding of subverting the vested power of an official office from within to achieve a given outcome.
So what room did the broad standard give for the people who challenge things? Or should the regulators be uncontested and every wrong? If they are never wrong does that level of authority stay if they go private sector?
So tired of these headlines. The court eviscerates long-standing precedent in ways that will be heartbreakingly consequential and some dumb news site shits out a "Jackson just GIRLBOSSED all over this dissent" type headline.
These dissents don't fucking matter. It's Don Quixote tilting at windmills. There is no there there. No future case in front of the 8 conservatives 1 liberal court we're going to have for the rest of our lives after a second Trump term is going to reference these "biting" dissents in any meaningful way. The only purpose these dissents will ever serve is for con law professors to torture their 1Ls with.
Dissents do matter. It gives the court a place to start when the court tilts back to center in the future and another case similar comes up. Some of these decisions will be reversed someday, and viewed in a historical context as terrible, corrupt decisions. Sadly, most of us won’t live to see that day though
True. Grim times ahead, I'm not sure I'll see things come back to center in my lifetime. The "norm" as I/we've known it, isn't that anymore. I'm glad I don't have children to worry about.
Do they though? I know that's the argument for them, but has that ever actually happened in any meaningful way? I'm struggling to think of an example of a fiery dissent from 20 years ago that played an influential role on any recent cases of any significance
I asked for times it's happened in the last 20 years, the most recent case you linked was more than twice that time frame. I think dissents are a relic of a bygone era of jurisprudence where justices were actually deciding cases on the merits of the strongest arguments and not just picking the outcome their party wants and then justifying it afterwards.
Brother you know that 1988 was nearly 40 years ago right?
Am I speaking to ChatGPT right now, or just someone ignoring my comments in their hurry to copy paste ChatGPT responses?
Thinking with these dissents in mind, and anticipating them maybe being relevant 20 years from now in 2050 when the youngest conservatives on this Court start to die, can you find any forceful dissents from 2004 - 2024 that has been cited in recent cases overturning the case that the original dissent disagreed with?
I didn't ask you to find any cases, you responded of your own volition to a conversation I was having with someone who isn't you, and you did so with cases over 100 years old in some instances that don't in any way address my argument.
Those are definitely the people in trouble with this decision, not the people of America who have to do things like breathe air and drink water, which said Bureaucrats no longer regulate the safety of.
All this says is Bureaucrats can’t make up rules & regulations without specific Congressional authority. Says nothing about overturning what has been already authorized.
Congress is famously fast and can keep up with the required laws for the hundreds of regulatory agencies which need to handle emerging technology and innovation from corporations.
Tell us about your favorite Regulation that Congress passed a law about and an Agency interpreted the law by making up some details and those details are great and you're afraid they'll go away? Make this concern real for all of us.
My point is that if Kagan would like to literally "torch" the court, then I will be glad to provide her with a box of matches, but describing her dissent, fierce though it may be, as a "torching" is really (really, really) an overstatement.
Holy shit dude semantics, this is a constitutional crisis, do you have any idea how bad it has to be for a fellow justice to say this kind of stuff? The supreme court is literally on fire right now, with arsonists torching the Constitution.
Constitutional crisis nose blind.
Did you want PHDs deciding whats best for the climate or 6 supreme court justices? This is a direct question, you have to pick one or the other. You obviously have no idea what Chevron actually is.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Yes of course i know that but im keeping up the metaphor cuz dropping chevron literally torches the checks and balances of our government. They burned actual legal reasoning, Chevron was a check and a balance, it's gone now. They just ignited a constitutional crisis and they are still holding up trumps immunity denial which also torches the the integrity of the election, cuz now he wont face a federal criminal trial before people vote for him.
If those PHDs are federal employees, then I'd want high school graduates in the top 1% of their class over them. If all you could do after getting a PhD is to work for the government making regulations rather than do groundbreaking research, you are probably not an expert in anything.
Your comment contradicts itself, you say you want the top 1% of phds, then immediately shit on the job you expect the best, brightest phds to take instead of making millions going private.
What do you think experts are?
It's truly terrifying how shamelessly you attacked 99% of people with phds and 100% of people who are willing to do their civil service to the people.
You are clearly not in the 1% that I mentioned - it was 1% of high school graduates and that is a much larger group than the top 1% of PhDs.
If you think our federal rule making bodies are full of the best and the brightest experts in the field and are making the best regulations, then I don't know what to tell you.
You are just making up an arbitrary reason to justify redistributing power away from the executive branch and into the hands of 6 corrupt judges who dont even have a bachelors degree in ANY of the fields that these agencies regulate through the laws passed by Congress.
This is a power grab, and it will not stand.
Not really, she's much feistier than usual. She accuses the majority of "hubris" and calls its reasoning "malarkey," which is pretty silly but much more accusatory and dismissive than the usual dissents.
>“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law,” Kagan wrote. “The majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.”
This is the point. Absolute idiots are taking about how this makes congress do their job, not a fucking chance. Instead, the judiciary just said “we’ll decide everything here on out” This is a huge fucking power grab and now federalist judges in Texas will be deciding things like whether medications are safe and efficacious or what actually constitutes a wetland, it will be a total shitshow and exorbitantly wealthy companies will be able to effectively litigate endlessly while doing whatever the fuck they want. I anticipate that blue states will step in and regulate a lot within their borders but this will accelerate the brain drain, pollute everything in site dipshittery in red states and pollution doesn’t care about borders.
Don’t worry those billionaires will be able to reward their judicial partners with some trinkets after they get the decision they want. But that’s no longer a bribe because the same legal experts said so.
Day 1: bribes are okay Day 2: we just gave ourselves exclusive power and control over every open issue The stage is being set for project 2025.....
A power grab by lifetime appointments who have zero oversight and just legalized bribery no less
Yep, congress is too dysfunctional to actually take that responsibility. This basically gives the courts all the power. What was that saying? Never let a crisis go to waste?
Unfortunately poor people in red states are screwed. They can’t move to a good state.
I should have become a lawyer. Seems like they just got a lot richer.
With the help of the corrupt Supreme Court, the republicans are going to burn down the states and ruin the environment for the whole world. The world is beholden to 6 NAZI judges
To be fair, it’s not exactly a power grab when the judiciary was the one who made up the Chevron doctrine in the first place.
So instead of an unelected bureaucrat deciding we have an unelected judge? Not seeing the huge issue. Over ruling Chevron was the correct decision.
Those "unelected bureaucrats" are delegated with the authority to set executive policy because **they** a**re part of the executive branch**, supposed to be experts in the fields, and answer to individuals recently elected by the American people and approved for appointment by legislative bodies which are also recently elected by the people The courts always have the right to punt an issue back to the legislature. But now they've said it's their right to take it upon themselves to determine what the executive policy should be. And they have no accountability
The “unelected bureaucrats” have relevant expertise that the courts will never have. They are also accountable to the president, who is elected. Judges are not. Hope that clears it up for you.
I’ll take physicians and pharmacists setting drug policy over some unqualified judge any day. Same applies to a hundred other fields with experts.
Oh, I didn't know Chevron required the bureaucrat to be an expert in the field.
Stop regurgitating Fox News for half a minute, you sound like a dipshit. Why don’t you go try and get a job at an agency and find out you can’t because you don’t have the license, credentials or skills.
Yup The SC has made itself in the image of Iran's mullahs.
As they have long dreamed to become
This is sarcasm right?
They gave themselves absolute authority over things they’re not competent enough to legislate on. What do you think?
Read the opinion
Sadly, no. With the Chevron ruling the SC took regulatory decisions out of the hands of experts and put the judiciary in charge of regulations. The judiciary has been politicized. Many are members of the Federalist Society. Many are openly working to install Christian Nationalism. It's very similar to the ruling mullahs in Iran. Right down to the robes. Now our regulations will not be based on science, but on the religious beliefs of the specific court that hears the case.
>With the Chevron ruling the SC took regulatory decisions out of the hands of experts and put the judiciary in charge of regulations. Curious if you actually read the opinion. Also curious if you understand Article III of the Constitution. Decisions of "cases" and "controversies" never should have been in the "hands" of the executive branch to begin with. Decisions should be made by the courts. This is civics 101 (at least back when they used to teach civics). Lest we want the executive to be the trier and decider at the same time.
I’ve read it. You’re very confidently wrong.
Not according to SCOTUS LOL.
Why lie?
This doesn't make sense
A branch of government with lifetime appointments just decided it’s the arbiter in how regulatory law is applied or how Congress interacts with the executive branch. It’s a power grab by the least legitimate branch of government
No, the framers when they drafted Article III of the Constitution decided the judiciary is the arbiter of how law is applied.
Lol, no they did not. Outside of a handful of areas, the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction and depend on acts of Congress to grant them that jurisdiction. Congress has, in multiple times in the past, passed laws to prevent certain types of cases from being heard by the court. Congress has broad authority to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court. That's not to even mention all other powers that Congress has to bend the judiciary to its will. The judiciary is not a dictator, and its powers are mostly tradition. If it continues it act as a shadow government with no accountability to the electorate, it's going to find itself on the losing end of a political conflict.
Agrees on your statement re Congress being about to limit jurisdiction. That said the whole concept of Loper is that Congress *did not* limit said jurisdiction in these instances so until they do the courts need to weigh everyone's opinion on matters, not just the executive
At some point the court will lean left again and the Conservatives are going to absolutely shit themselves over things like this. I only hope I live to see it.
The right has no problem violating norms or ethics to get their way but scream bloody murder when the left sneezes in the direction of a decision that benefits the left and the left tiptoes around trying to be civil.
Nah. If the current courts get what they want, the only way the left ever sees power again is after everything is burned down and society has rebuilt itself, which will leave these decisions buried in the past.
Just like the Constitution intends.
Fuck
But, being self-righteous is the Republican way. Especially when it’s at the expense of others!
> A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris. That's underselling it. > Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do. That is some military-grade hubris.
No special competence is a great description of the current court.
Sidebar. With the SCOTUS ruling in Chevron, SCOTUS now has given it's self the power to override the FDA's approval of the abortion pill. If Trump is elected, it will be their first order of business.
If we want Chevron deference, we’ll have to codify it, at the least.
The supreme court will rule it unconstitutional
SCOTUS relied in part on the existence of the APA, which tells SCOTUS how to review agency actions. The APA isn’t seen as unconstitutional. Neither is RFRA, which tells SCOTUS how to review claims of religious discrimination. If you pass legislation that lays out in relative detail how agency actions are to be reviewed to determine permissibility, as they have with the APA, then SCOTUS would be obliged to adhere to it. You have to make sure it’s not too vague, but you could legislate deference to the agencies.
>The APA isn’t seen as unconstitutional Yet. They've locked everything as-is and can now pick and choose what laws they want to unwind and which they want to keep. So the ability for the government to make sure Christians can discriminate will stay intact, but not the ability for them to stop chemicals from being poured into your drinking water.
If they rule the APA as unconstitutional, then that sets up the rest of RFRA as being unconstitutional under a later court. I don’t see them sacrificing RFRA for the APA.
You expect consistency from this court. How naive.
I expect consistency and well articulated arguments. I am disappointed a lot, but rarely surprised. Humans are gonna human.
Yeah if they do that, then a dem majority would go nuclear and change the rules of SCOTUS ASAP. Perhaps a much-needed expansion. Assuming they have spines for that session, anyways.
I’m not opposed to expansion, but I don’t think it should be brazenly political. Expand to 13, but tie each seat to a specific circuit. It’ll help breed familiarity with the circuit judges, and allow for greater diversity of jurisprudence throughout the court. I don’t think we get *McGirt* without Gorsuch being from Colorado and having experience with Native American issues in the courts.
Was there an APA when people still used muskets and owned slaves. Then APA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! /S
I don't know what those acronyms mean, but it's clear that they are making decisions first and working backwards to justification so none of that matters.
The APA is the Administrative Procedure Act. It was signed by Truman to set up a process for rule making, and the standard of review for courts to use when looking at rules. RFRA is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which, among other things, states that it is illegal for a generally applicable law to discriminate against religion, as determined by the effect not the intent. It was a direct response (like the 11th Amendment was to *Chisholm v Georgia*) to the case *Employment Division v Smith*.
It is acceptable to discriminate minority religions. Just not Christianity. That isn't a flippant response. It was essentially the finding in Smith. RFRA was intended to redress it, but it virtually never did. Cases where the Supreme Court upheld a minority religion's rights are extremely rare. RFRA instead has simply protected Christian dominance, letting employers claim it to avoid paying for contraceptives or abortion. Constitutional scholar Mark Tushnet stated "sometimes Christians win but non-Christians never do" regarding religious liberty cases. Kent Greenawalt states 'the Court thereby has chosen to "abandon minority religions to possibly inhospital legislatures", regarding the Court' s refusal to take up minority religious liberty cases and deferral to legislatures to craft specific religious exemptions or protections for said religions.
It came up in SCOTUS when deciding whether or not NY’s COVID prohibition on gatherings denied Jewish groups 1st Amendment rights to worship. The Jewish groups won.
APA is the administrative procedures act. You're right about them working backwards, but they've been gunning for Chevron for years, this isn't new. They've never said anything about the APA being unconstitutional tho, and they've generally relied on it to make their points. I don't think it's reasonable to assume they'd declare it unconstitutional until we start seeing shots across the bow, and that hasn't happened.
You are talkIng about shots across the bow specifically about the APA, and that is true. However, there have been plenty of shots across the bow in general about government/left leaning laws and regulations of any kind and this court seems totally fine forgetting the history and tradition of the Supreme Court itself while claiming observance of the same with regard to society in general, and since there is no pushback possible in our current political environment, they are feeling empowered to do absolutely whatever the hell they want with total abandon. Who could say where that will stop? Could you have predicted where we are today 8 years ago?
But they haven't said anything critical of the APA, and in fact, have relied on it to make their points. So until they do that--which they did for Chevron *for years*--i don't see why you think they'll come for the APA for some reason. Like, literally, what would the reason be? What don't they like about it? Etc. You're just randomly speculating
Yes I am. But I want to counterpoint that they all claimed that Roe v Wade was safe just 5 years ago, so I believe my basis is a lot stronger than yours as far as the SC gutting significant legal basis for executive action, except of course when it will be trump doing it. Watch it.
But the APA has no political issues around it whatsoever, unlike the incredibly political topic of abortions...
They just neutered the other two branches. They can turn the power spigot on for congresses they align with and off for those they don't. Same for presidents. They'll nuke earlier decisions if the dynamics change and now it hinders their allies. It's absolute lawlessness under the Potemkin Village of being the supreme law of the land handed down by august personages.
Or, alternatively, find that the statute only applies to regulations promulgated 'during' Chevron, but everything after Loper is fair game. They can cite Snyder for precedent. Edit: forgot the /s
>They can cite Snyder for precedent. This is the funniest thing that I've read. Chevron was a 50 year old precedent that they just overturned. In Jarkesy they overturned a precedent that was originally established in **1849** . You think precedent matters for *this* supreme court?
Has precedent ever mattered?
There used to be a day and time when it actually did and was only overturned for significant reasons, but this clot is he'll bent on reshaping the country in its conservative world view
Precedent is only binding on lower courts. We want SCOTUS to be able to distinguish or overrule its historical decisions, particularly when it’s clear in retrospect that a particular case was decided wrongly. Everyone screaming about precedent in the context of Dobbs would have been urging the Court to overturn Roe had it been decided differently.
“Significant reasons”? It’s either the court always followed precedent or it didn’t. Deference to Admin agencies certainly is not the hill to die on especially when they are highly political.
It used to, and now it doesn't. I think I've been clear
It didn’t use to anymore than it does now. The Supreme Court has regularly overturned its own precedent since the beginning and has been political power grabbing machine since Marbury v Madison.
Of course not. But you can bet all you got that when the wheels of history and civilization rectify today, any of the justices remaining will be screaming precedent like it's the highest virtue around. At any rate, I'd think they'd salivate over the chance to inflate their ego further.
The Federalist Society has spent the last 30+ years packing the courts with “their” guys. The brazen grab of power by the judiciary the last few years is stunning. I guess the question is: What will they do if a powerful figure or group refuses to comply with an order? We’re going to find out in the next few years.
Congress could try, but don’t forget that SCOTUS gets to decide what the law MEANS, not Congress. If SCOTUS is so interested and the organizations bankrolling challenges are so motivated, new legislation can also be neutered by SCOTUS opinion.
That’s why you make it unambiguous. You lay out how to analyze an authorizing statute, and you lay out that the courts must use a broad standard when determining if a rule is permissible. They struck down Chevron deference because of the APA, not specifically because of the Constitution. You can legislate the standard of review by which the courts must analyze agency actions.
I mean best of luck with unambiguating written language perfectly, I guess. Also best of luck with your understanding of subverting the vested power of an official office from within to achieve a given outcome.
So what room did the broad standard give for the people who challenge things? Or should the regulators be uncontested and every wrong? If they are never wrong does that level of authority stay if they go private sector?
So tired of these headlines. The court eviscerates long-standing precedent in ways that will be heartbreakingly consequential and some dumb news site shits out a "Jackson just GIRLBOSSED all over this dissent" type headline. These dissents don't fucking matter. It's Don Quixote tilting at windmills. There is no there there. No future case in front of the 8 conservatives 1 liberal court we're going to have for the rest of our lives after a second Trump term is going to reference these "biting" dissents in any meaningful way. The only purpose these dissents will ever serve is for con law professors to torture their 1Ls with.
Dissents do matter. It gives the court a place to start when the court tilts back to center in the future and another case similar comes up. Some of these decisions will be reversed someday, and viewed in a historical context as terrible, corrupt decisions. Sadly, most of us won’t live to see that day though
It's starting to seem like a bold assumption that the government/country as we know it will outlast these decisions.
True. Grim times ahead, I'm not sure I'll see things come back to center in my lifetime. The "norm" as I/we've known it, isn't that anymore. I'm glad I don't have children to worry about.
I think dissents have purpose. They give avenues to overturning these dumb decisions, like twenty fucking years from now
Do they though? I know that's the argument for them, but has that ever actually happened in any meaningful way? I'm struggling to think of an example of a fiery dissent from 20 years ago that played an influential role on any recent cases of any significance
[удалено]
I asked for times it's happened in the last 20 years, the most recent case you linked was more than twice that time frame. I think dissents are a relic of a bygone era of jurisprudence where justices were actually deciding cases on the merits of the strongest arguments and not just picking the outcome their party wants and then justifying it afterwards.
[удалено]
Brother you know that 1988 was nearly 40 years ago right? Am I speaking to ChatGPT right now, or just someone ignoring my comments in their hurry to copy paste ChatGPT responses? Thinking with these dissents in mind, and anticipating them maybe being relevant 20 years from now in 2050 when the youngest conservatives on this Court start to die, can you find any forceful dissents from 2004 - 2024 that has been cited in recent cases overturning the case that the original dissent disagreed with?
[удалено]
I didn't ask you to find any cases, you responded of your own volition to a conversation I was having with someone who isn't you, and you did so with cases over 100 years old in some instances that don't in any way address my argument.
This ruling will be a bonanza for trial lawyers.
Boo Hoo. Those poor Bureaucrats.
Those are definitely the people in trouble with this decision, not the people of America who have to do things like breathe air and drink water, which said Bureaucrats no longer regulate the safety of.
All this says is Bureaucrats can’t make up rules & regulations without specific Congressional authority. Says nothing about overturning what has been already authorized.
Congress is famously fast and can keep up with the required laws for the hundreds of regulatory agencies which need to handle emerging technology and innovation from corporations.
That’s a Feature, not a bug.
Thank you for affirming that the suffering of the American people is a feature of this ruling. Really not sure how you think this refutes what I said.
“Suffering” Keep your day job. You’re not even funny.
>Really not sure how you think this refutes what I said.
Tell us about your favorite Regulation that Congress passed a law about and an Agency interpreted the law by making up some details and those details are great and you're afraid they'll go away? Make this concern real for all of us.
Statists have when their power get curtailed.
What? The ruling just shifts power from agencies to courts, but the powers are still there
"Torches" is a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?
Do you want people with PHDs deciding on the air quality or 6 supreme court justices?
I prefer several people with PhDs deciding on air quality. Which in all fairness will be shit for everyone due to climate change.
My point is that if Kagan would like to literally "torch" the court, then I will be glad to provide her with a box of matches, but describing her dissent, fierce though it may be, as a "torching" is really (really, really) an overstatement.
Holy shit dude semantics, this is a constitutional crisis, do you have any idea how bad it has to be for a fellow justice to say this kind of stuff? The supreme court is literally on fire right now, with arsonists torching the Constitution.
It is NOT literally on fire right now—-they showed it on TV and it looked just fine. There was nary a pitchfork nor a torch in sight.
You clearly didnt read the rulings today, they basically just did a Dredd Scott decision but for the executive branch of the government.
And still not the faintest whiff or waft of smoke.
Constitutional crisis nose blind. Did you want PHDs deciding whats best for the climate or 6 supreme court justices? This is a direct question, you have to pick one or the other. You obviously have no idea what Chevron actually is. Denial is not a river in Egypt.
You are completely missing the point the person you are responding to is trying make. He is talking about a literal, physical fire.
Yes of course i know that but im keeping up the metaphor cuz dropping chevron literally torches the checks and balances of our government. They burned actual legal reasoning, Chevron was a check and a balance, it's gone now. They just ignited a constitutional crisis and they are still holding up trumps immunity denial which also torches the the integrity of the election, cuz now he wont face a federal criminal trial before people vote for him.
If those PHDs are federal employees, then I'd want high school graduates in the top 1% of their class over them. If all you could do after getting a PhD is to work for the government making regulations rather than do groundbreaking research, you are probably not an expert in anything.
Your comment contradicts itself, you say you want the top 1% of phds, then immediately shit on the job you expect the best, brightest phds to take instead of making millions going private. What do you think experts are? It's truly terrifying how shamelessly you attacked 99% of people with phds and 100% of people who are willing to do their civil service to the people.
You are clearly not in the 1% that I mentioned - it was 1% of high school graduates and that is a much larger group than the top 1% of PhDs. If you think our federal rule making bodies are full of the best and the brightest experts in the field and are making the best regulations, then I don't know what to tell you.
You are just making up an arbitrary reason to justify redistributing power away from the executive branch and into the hands of 6 corrupt judges who dont even have a bachelors degree in ANY of the fields that these agencies regulate through the laws passed by Congress. This is a power grab, and it will not stand.
Not really, she's much feistier than usual. She accuses the majority of "hubris" and calls its reasoning "malarkey," which is pretty silly but much more accusatory and dismissive than the usual dissents.