The next SCOTUS target won’t be gay marriage. It will be…

I think DeSantis's laws passed in a rigged map where geography votes rather than people comes from the same sort of anti-democratic place judicial nullification comes from. At best you are saying we need another anti-democratic body to stop the other anti-democratic bodies. I would prefer actual democracy over that. Anyways, advisory ruling are a check/balance in the same way their veto is, as you admit, its all perception. The executive could nullify the judicial if it wished just as it could ignore an advisory ruling. The Democrats will not do it, so obviously whatever comes out of this court, they will accept. There will probably be state governors prepared to nullify at some point in the future, so we can all experience what mid 19th century politics was like.

 

And where does that authority to delegate come from?

Who determines where Constitutional rights and authorities begin and end in this country? I'll give you hint, it's not Congress or the executive.

 

Yeah, where is that power granted in the Constitution? As far as I can tell no one is designated the arbiter on the matter, given the branches supposed co-equal status.

 

Vladeck made the point that they seem to be responding to criticism. I must admit I'm a bit surprised. Part of my problem is I thought they were so insulated from the rest of the world in their own incestuous network, that they would not even appreciate how they looked to the larger populace. And I think some of them are, but at least Kavanaugh and Barrett seem to care about the long-term institution. Plain that Alito and Thomas could care less

 

If all of our institutions are just "democratic bodies" with no hedge against "democracy run amok" that is exactly how you create a society with the only rights being the will of the majority.

 

if someone is two seats over from you at the game, are they adjacent to you?

ad·ja·cent
adjective

1. 1.
   next to or adjoining something else.

If a wetland is 500' from a ditch that flows to a navigable waterway, is it adjacent to the navigable waterway?

 

because we are tribal and common sense has no place in our society?

imo, it's all about stoking emotions to fund raise so that they can blast the disinterested voters with sound bites and FB posts to gain their votes based on emotion rather than intelligence.

 

So instead we have to create a society where rights are the will of a minority with veto powers over them, makes total sense lol

 

You sound like you disagree with Marbury v. Madison, without which you have no right to gay marriage, no right to an abortion, none of that (not a compelling point for me, but I'd think a compelling point for you).

You also leave all of these issues between the federal branches unsettled because you leave them with no arbiter in the event of a conflict between the branches (compelling point for me). You've left the system broken.

 

I never said it's perfect, but it's a Hell of a lot better than what you're suggesting.

 

I don't think they care about approval or institutional prestige for its own sake, I just think the smarter conservative justices know their rulings will be more durable with some sort of legitimacy attached, which depends on the former to some degree.

 

I didnt suggest anything. Pretty much any democratic body has bylaws or some sort of document to create boundaries of conduct and guarantee rights that cant be removed, the argument you are making seems to suggest that you can simply vote to do whatever willy nilly. If that is the case, nothing about the US constitution can stop that either. IF its all just raw power in the end, the Constitution is also just a piece of paper too.

 

And who checks them if they just redefine the bylaws to mean whatever they want them to mean?

A normal business "redefines" their bylaws or breaks the law, normally there are institutions like the IRS who will come after them. What authority checks Congress if they "redefine" their bylaws?

 

Yes, I do disagree with Marbury, the original judicial power grab! I mean you can give those cases, but for all those there are dozens more, like Dred Scott or the Slaughter-House cases. The supreme court is anti-democratic, liberals have learned to love it for maybe half a century, but I'm not a liberal, and its pretty obvious that legal liberalisms deference to the courts has largely failed to deliver durable rights.

 

Without providing a viable alternative, you're really giving no standard to gauge whether it's been a failure.

Your perfect way of organizing a system would be far worse. Democracy unchecked is also dangerous.

 

Interesting filing. Without reviewing the complaint, looks more Superfund, and not permitting, but the issues will almost certainly overlap



City of Plant City
v.
3M Co. fka Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; AGC Inc. fka Asahi Glass Co.; Angus International Safety Group Ltd; Archroma Management LLC; Archroma U.S. Inc.; Arkema Inc.; BASF Corp. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co.; Carrier Global Corp.; Central Sprinkler LLC; Chemdesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Inc.; Chubb Fire Ltd; Clariant Corp.; Corteva Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Dupont De Nemours Inc.; Dynax Corp.; E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co.; Fire Products GP Holding LLC; Johnson Controls International PLC; Kidde PLC Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical Co.; National Foam Inc.; Raytheon Technologies Corp. fka United Technologies Corp.; The Chemours Co.; The Chemours Co. FC LLC; Tyco Fire Products LP; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corp. Inc.
5/24/2023 23TC-173933824


Environmental tort. Defendants polluted plaintiff's property and surrounding water with toxins. Plaintiff wants the court to force defendants to remediate the property.
CNS Plus Download
Louise Caro
Cossich Sumich

 

damn..now I have to agree with you. May 26, 2023, 11:20 am..noted

now look at what DeS says. he wants the DOJ and the FBI to follow his directions and not be independent of political shifts so the entire jsutice system of the US is subject to his beliefs. Are you okay with that?

Ron DeSantis is going after Donald Trump like never before | CNN Politics

It is also in keeping with how DeSantis has led from Tallahassee. As governor, DeSantis has systematically strengthened the office of the governor and stretched its constitutional powers in ways that no previous executive has. He seized control of the state’s environmental protection agency, deployed the state’s police force in novel ways, created a law enforcement team to monitor voting, removed a democratically elected local prosecutor and orchestrated a takeover of a small liberal arts college.

DeSantis has treated state bureaucracies that previously operated independently as extensions of his executive offices. He has stocked state regulatory boards with like-minded political appointees, who have followed his lead in banning gender affirming care for minors and extending restrictions on school lessons about sexual orientation and gender identity. He has punished Disney, the tourism engine of the state and its most iconic business, for challenging him over those restrictions, and forced state lawmakers to pass a new congressional map drawn by his office. “I may have earned 51 percent of the vote, but that entitled me to wield 100 percent of the executive power, and I resolved to use it to advance conservative principles,” DeSantis said at an event in Wisconsin on May 6.
...................
Among his top priorities, DeSantis said, would be to “re-constitutionalize” the federal government, which he described as a plan to “discipline the bureaucracy” and agencies that he saic are “detached from constitutional accountability.”

He would dispel with the longstanding tradition that government institutions like the US Department of Justice operate independently from the president – embracing a philosophy that Trump often governed by but never articulated so succinctly. “Republican presidents have accepted the canard that the DOJ and FBI are quote, independent,” DeSantis said. “They are not independent agencies. They are part of the executive branch. They answer to the elected President of the United States.”

 

That is so dangerous but so consistent with their worldview. The bind/protect construction. Not sure the Republic survives

 

when the rights of the minorities have no protection, conflict will almost certainly follow. Our entire constiution was set up to protect the rights of the minority opinion. DeS and his ilk have no respect for that concept