551–560 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All Congress needs to do… And therein lies the problem. We know Congress is too deadlocked to be effective. Does the Court pushing back on them have a shot at getting the legislative branch to do their jobs?
Conservatives love deadlock, it means the federal government does less, and power remains at the local level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case, as I understand it, the EPA was declaring they had authority to enforce some new rules by interpreting where congress wrote "may" as "must". Whether you agree with the EPA's motives or not, it should concern everyone that un-elected bureaucrats have been increasingly inventing or hallucinating the language of their mandates to turn them into whatever they wanted, whenever it suits them, and this was a m…
Agreed, the executive branch (the bureaucracies) does not make laws, congress does. The fact that the bureaucracies are governing above and beyond what they are legally allowed to do is actually horrifying and very undemocratic.
If this was true it would have been the case for all previous court panels. That it's not shows that it's the court playing politics now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why, then, has no previous SC viewed its role in this way? Courts have historically always considered the intent of law (constitution) in addition to the word of law (constitution). Why isn't this one? It feels like this SC intends to use pedantry to hobble the federal government. But... why? Because they can?
It isn’t hobbling the federal government. It’s strengthening it by giving powers to Congress and the states where it belongs. It’s hobbling the executive branch to prevent them from ignoring the will of the people via Congress.
Congress is no more respecting the will of the people than the executive branch, nor the Supreme Court.
They're all respecting their own opinions, followed only by the will of the lobbyists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is just nakedly partisan stuff going on. The problem is much of the left’s gains over the last few decades have been based on shaky legal/constitutional ground. Even leftist judges like Ginsberg admitted that, and they were counting on the mistakes being in place for too long to correct (precedent). Now all that technical debt is coming back to kick our ass. This isn’t the end of the world though, Congress can…
By this reasoning, women voting and eliminating the 3/5 coefficient for certain people are on "shaky constitutional ground."
These guys are on a roll. Yesterday was giving states legal rights over indigenous nations. Today this. I was already planning to expat soon, but this all makes me want to try to hurry that timeline. Sorry to those of you that are stuck in this hellscape.
I'd like to caution other people who are feeling despondent and thinking of leaving that this is exactly what they want. They want you to give them your homes, your relationships, your friends, your resources, your job and everything you've cared about. So instead of being cynical and celebrating people who are abandoning ship, which I totally understand, we should instead spend time uniting people in opposition. Sta…
We're only a few years away from the collapse. It is a smart move to escape while you can. If I need heart pills or insulin in the future and they can't be made safe, then it won't be safe if you have any medical issues. If the water won't be safe because we couldn't regulate new chemicals invented, then it won't be safe to live here. If it isn't safe to have a pregnancy, because they've decided to sentence to death those with an ectopic pregnancy, why should you stay?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm old enough to remember when I could grudgingly accept that there was some wisdom in decisions I disagreed with, even if perhaps not enough to sway me. But I could see something argued intelligently. This is just nakedly partisan stuff going on. I think viewing it through that lens - "we're going to do what we want because it fits our politics" - makes the most sense.
Highly disagree. All of the recent decisions make perfect legal sense, this coming from the son of a Constitutional attorney who has described to me the rulings, reasons behind them, precedents, etc.. And he's a pro-choice, anti-gun Democrat. He still agrees with the legal decisions. I read the rulings myself too and they make total sense given what I've learned over decades of listening to him.
[X] Doubt
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you see a blow to the chevron deference doctrine as a good thing? I'd say that the doctrine properly tries to keep the supreme court, the least democratically responsible branch of US federal government, from being the most powerful of the three branches of government.
> being the most powerful of the three branches of government. By pushing the responsibility to lifelong bureaucrats? I honestly don't see a difference there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making it easier for states to ban abortion is good for individual liberty?
It's about giving power back to the states, and in turn the people. So a state and its people would have the power to decide on something like abortion rather than a single centralized leviathan-authority.
That sounds quite Stalinist. The people are not the state.
> So a state and its people would have the power to decide on something like abortion rather than a single centralized leviathan-authority.
Right, so your federal government is a centralised Hobbesian leviathan, but state government is not? How is state government not centralised? It's just centralised at a different level.
You know what would not be centralised? Allowing individuals bodily autonomy. Let them decide whether they want an abortion, not have them be forced to carry foetuses to term against their will.
I hope they go after the unconstitutional agency known as the "ATF" next.
It's not clear to me if the court has ruled broadly regarding delegation here (we still need experts to read through the entire ruling), but they've clearly indicated that they believe that delegation is not okay with them. Which basically means that this court will reduce the Federal government to a non-entity very soon, making its functioning absolutely impossible. That may even be "constitutionally" correct (altho…
I'm just dumbfounded by the fact that the US Supreme Court has no term limits, age limits, or reasonable impeachment mechanism for justices that have unethical behaviour or outright lie on their job interview. The USA is the most "at will employment" country in the world until it comes to the most critical functions of a government. It's absolutely crazy to me.