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

The few people that I know that believe this don’t walk around trashing things.
They just don’t worry about the things that many do as much.

 

If you’re looking at greenhouse emissions Koch industries aren’t even in the top 20.
Greenhouse 100 Polluters Index: (2022 Report, Based on 2020 Data)

Interesting enough Warren Buffet’s company is number 4…

 

You would have to end the desire for some people to be successful to end capitalism.
Some people will always be driven to have a better life. It’s human nature for some of us.

 

The matrix
Government overlords give everyone the same regardless of what you do or how hard you work.
Everyone has the same level of misery so we are all just glad to have what we have.

 

I have not read it, just reports. I thought it was 9-0 on EPA’s lack of authority and 5-4 on definition of wetlands. I will have to read it

 

It was (actually concurring in judgement), but that is probably just some trading. Doesn’t make sense otherwise

 

Yes. Who else should determine it? Let's say Congress and an agency disagree over the scope of the agency's authority, who settles the scope of the authority? Let's say an agency claims to have authority and Congress doesn't want to get involved (because they don't want to be on the record on an issue) who settles it?

If Congress supports something, they should directly reap the political consequences from it instead of just pointing the finger at bureaucracy.

The Courts are at least supposed to be these nonpartisan officials or umpires whose explicit purpose under the Constitution is to interpret laws, including delegated authority.

If you're complaining that the courts are now politicized, ya'll soiled that well in the first place.

 

Funny/not funny.

A lot of laughter about this guy on the internet, but his legal reasoning is at least as sound as your average Alito or Ho Kamarzyk (sp?) opinion, and based on the same underlying premise about who has rights

 

Why isn't your remedy in the case you present for congress to act instead of running to a court? Your argument is that they should do so once the court acts, but not prior? Basically what you are saying is that judicial > executive when it comes to applying law, even when congress deferred to the executive in creating the EPA to act in the first place. As I said before, that seems like a judicial power grab to me. Guess what, the people that sued the EPA are bypassing congress to! And when they do you are like "well congress can always do something." But apparently you get to skip that step if you control the courts!

 

It was 9-0 on rejecting the nexus test, which was enough to dispose of this particular case. It was 5-4 on narrowing the definition of "adjacent" in wetlands adject to waters of the United States (which now rendered a lot of wetlands that were previously protected unprotected).

 

What I'm saying is in the event of an ambiguity, the institution whose explicit purpose is to interpret the ambiguity is the judiciary under the Constitution. You don't have to like it, but that's how the system is supposed to work.

If you're worried about how powerful the judiciary is, which is warranted, there are still limits to the scope of their power. They are limited by the laws on the books and they have incredibly limited power to enforce their own laws.

As far as whether Congress can act, Congress is always free to act within the scope of their authority, and they are limited and should be more limited in how much of their own authority they can simply delegate away. That's passing the buck. Again, who determines whether they have or haven't gone too far in the case of a disagreement (provided there is standing and all of these other legal requirements to bring an action)? You guessed it, the judiciary.

 

In the event of an ambiguity you are saying the courts must act instead of congress or the executive, plain and simple. The people that raised the issue arent running to congress to lobby to change the law. Its the same sort of expedience that you fault the executive for in making a determination, except the executive at least has some kind of implied authority in that the agency has been designated to implement said law. The judiciary has none, its just more expedient than trying to get something through congress or hope a friendly figure controls the executive and has regulatory capture. This country is run by the judicial branch (why do you think they wheeled in a clearly incapacitated Feinstein), and if they blow up Chevron, it will be even more so.

 

I don't think it is illegitimate for the judiciary to determine whether an agency is overstepping its authority. But it should defer to the agency and to Congress, as they are elected branches and democratically accountable. That said, the deference shouldn't be an irrebuttable presumption.

However, the major issue in this case isn't one of those examples. Congress spoke clearly, and five Republicans overruled them because they disagreed on policy. They then rewrote the statute. That's an illegitimate act. And it's not the first time in recent years they've done that.

 

Doesn't seem like checks and balances or coequal branches if the judiciary has veto power over both the executive and congress, sounds like judicial supremacy to me.

 

The judiciary necessarily has to have some veto power over both. There are still checks and balances, though. Congress has the purse. The Executive has the sword. The judiciary has neither. All it has is perception.

 

Nexus test was rejected as too vague and unworkable. Compared to what? Are they under the impression that other legal tests can be applied with algorithmic precision? There’s a reason that judge and judgement are derived from the same root. To borrow from Gaudi and the art world, nature doesn’t have right angles. Reality is more random.

I appreciate that property buyers and speculators need a little bit more certainty. I’m sympathetic to that. But I think you resolve that procedurally with preapprovals. But ultimately, nature is variable. If there are important interests to protect, you can’t do so with rigid rules.

 

Think we are currently under judicial supremacy, but I must admit that Steve Vladeck gave me pause yesterday being interviewed on 5-4. I bought his book but I have not read it yet. He tends to make me feel a bit more measured.

 

Why does it necessarily have to have it? Interpreting law is their statutory power, all the other ones they've claimed for themselves. Constitutionally speaking, they could simply operate in an advisory capacity. There is nothing to give force to their rulings other than the other branches accepting their legitimacy, as you say.

 

We are. This group of Republicans, in particular, have been on the warpath when it comes to stripping power from the elected branches and consolidating it in themselves (in order to push their policy preferences on the rest of the country). But we're also seeing that harm the perception of their institution, which is the source of their power.

 

If all they're issuing is advisory opinions, then they aren't a check, and there's no balance. Think very hard whether you want the federal judges here in Florida who have overruled many of the worst things DeSantis has done to only be able to issue advisory opinions.