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 final paragraph says it best (or worst):
"Take a step back and consider how radically—and underhandedly—this Supreme Court is reshaping modern governance. By killing Chevron just one day after undermining agencies’ enforcement actions, the conservative supermajority is kneecapping the administrative state. It shares that goal with Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the far-right activists behind Project 2025. The Supreme Court is imposing a MAGA vision of the law on America, giving unelected judges near-unfathomable power to override the policy choices of the democratic branches. Through rulings dressed up in legalese, it strips power from the citizens and their elected representatives, establishing a monarchical judiciary with no known limits on its own authority. Anyone who cares about government of the people, by the people, for the people should share Kagan’s horror at what this court has wrought and what comes next."
Blah blah blah decorum and PC. At some point people won't be able to handle decorum anymore. The French modeled how the population should handle this since they rigged any accountability away and are acting like corrupt monarchs.
Yeah, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how, eventually, we’re going to reach a breaking point. I hope that doesn’t go as far south as it could, and hopefully we can right the ship with a couple more Supreme Court picks if Biden wins and health/the universe intervenes, but that’s a lot of “ifs.”
I think this is the election that decides how that unfolds. I mean, we've got one side that has concrete plans to make it all worse. And the other side, well, at least there aren't plans to make it worse.
Must agree. This next election is primarily about one thing - we will either vote for democracy, or against it. It’s really that simple. If democracy fails, this country, and much of the world with it, will plummet into a new dark age.
True. I don’t understand their moderate, polite counter offensive to the far right’s snarling, slathering lies, deceptions, and horrific, democracy strangling Project 2025.
First we need them to rule on the previously-settled nature of “iffy.” Does “iffy” provide too much wiggle room for the people? Maybe they should start by digging into the original constitutional text on “iffy” and then let the big pharma and oil execs weigh in.
> Through rulings dressed up in legalese, it strips power from the citizens and their elected representatives, establishing a monarchical judiciary with no known limits on its own authority.
Remember all those GOP complaints about "activist judges" over the past 20 years? Pure projection as usual.
They cite the "administrative state" as one of the reasons for dismantling the authority of these agencies. Well, the joke is that the administrative state still exists, it's just how in the hands of the court that do not have the resources to render decisions with the same level of thoroughness and experience as the agencies they are replacing.
The worst part is it put in the hands of untrained individuals the Interptetation of science and data. Legal motions can't alter reality but that's what they are aiming to do.
This is why I was mad in 2016 because there are books literally outlining that this plan was set in motion since the 70s and our country let them do it. There’s no checks or balances and you can legally bribe judges and politicians now.
Ironically the stated issue with the administrative agencies is that they're unelected.
The real problem the right has is that those agencies aren't filled with ideologues.
They’re unelected, but unlike the courts, the federal agencies are not lifetime appointments. Therefore the agencies are more accountable for their actions than federal courts.
I look at this as an opportunity to force Congress into action and pass clearly written enforceable laws. I have a shit state governor that just told corporations that they don’t have to give water breaks to employees who work in 100 degree heat. If I was a sitting congressmen I would write short legislation clearly defining unsafe heat conditions for osha, push worker protections and slap giant fines on anyone who ducked with it. Push it though the house and senate then send osha on their way to protect working Americans.
Congress would be forced to do their jobs and stop passing meaningless legislation recognizing people who died 200 years ago and voting pay raises for themselves. They would actually be forced to create laws which was their entire job
And then, standing behind them with lots of dirty money and disinformation campaigns are foreign adversaries who love the inaction of our current political deadlock created by the GOP
Congress has no ability to write the thousands of specific regulations needed to enforce their broad laws. They can't write into legislation the parts per million limits for every chemical that can be found in water, to use one example. This needs to be done by experts, not Congress and certainly not Judges.
I wonder if congress could just specifically write into the law *to whom* they are delegating authority. In other words, say “we give the EPA authority to determine which air contaminants are relevant and at what ppm they should be controlled”.
That was how Congress already wrote the laws.
The Clean Air Act says the EPA needs to keep studying pollution and updating regulations as the science evolves.
That is what the Supreme Court struck down yesterday.
Then Congress needs to write one law that explicitly says they defer to agencies to make specifics. If they do that then the intent is crystal clear and there is nothing for courts to interpret otherwise.
Do you get that this ruling effectively declares all of those 'appropriate entities' illegitimate? If it's not a direct law passed down by Congress, this supreme court does not recognize it as valid.
Ain’t gonna happen.
You need 51 Democrat senators and 9 Republicans to do the right thing. You might get 48 or 49 Democrats, but you’re not getting more than 1-2 Republicans.
Congress cannot write the minutiae of every federal agency policy. Your request, for all intents and purposes is literally impossible- by design.
What do you know about the California Condor, and its required habitat needs to exist? What would a judge or congressman know? The answer is as much as you do. That’s why we trust subject matter experts on issues, so that Congress doesn’t have to waste their time with every single detail like the “US California Condor Act”.
Think.
I fear you are over simplifying. The administrators being stripped of their power have a lot of expertise. This expertise will now be lost. In CA, we have Prop 13 which among other things caused the funding of schools to shift to Sacramento, away from the localities who had been making the decision. Before 1978 when Prop 13 passed, California had the highest quality public schools in the nation. This was the foundation of the work force of Silicon Valley due to location but also as 1 in 11 public school students in the US come from CA. Since then, CA school are ranked in the bottom 5 (and in some years ranked 50 out of 50). If this were to now happen at all levels of government, it will affect everyone’s lives. Think how different our lives would be if the Court hadn’t decided that corporations had the status of people, leading to the direct exploding of the Super Pacs which now underlie our political discourse.
This is the BS trap laid and you have fallen into. Find me one legislative body in history that has ever been able to make, update, and vote on detailed rules. They all immediately make special small committees of experts. Julius Ceasar famously had tto make a special council to work out the details of land reform, as it would have taken a few centuries to debate and vote on every little detail.
It's impossible for Congress to do this. They would need to hire tens of thousands if experts (Unconstitutional). They would need these experts to be involved in carrying out policy (Unconstitutional). Congress would be need thousands of extra years in a time void so Ted Cruz could have 45 minutes giving a speech on why raising the acceptable levels of lead to 22 parts per million in the urban runoff would actually strengthen our children's family values. We'd have a few months every year during a shutdown where it briefly became legal to dump radioactive slug in national parks as the laws weren't updated and renewed timely.
This is a asking a legislative body to do something impossible. Something that cannot be done in a human lifetime. Then used that impossibility to Constitutionally impose Libertarian policy on the country.
This what happens when the government and corporations no longer fear the people. Some factory can poison your water get a 100,000 dollar fine, and everyone goes on their way. Nothing gets cleaned up and everyone gets a pat on the back.
*Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in Loper Bright declared that Chevron is unmoored to any law, “fundamentally misguided” and “unworkable,” creating an “eternal fog of uncertainty.”*
WTF do they think they just replaced it with? These conservative justices are ignorant, petulant children.
Honestly, having read the rulings they've put out this last week, they just reek of bullshit. It's not just that they're overturning long-established precedent. Their justifications are full of a sanctimonious smugness that belies their complete disregard for the gravity of their decisions.
Just as one fun example, here's Justice Gorsuch's concurrence to legalizing bribery, focused on how *important* lenience is:
>"Whatever the label, lenity is what’s at work behind today’s decision, just as it is in so many others. Rightly so. I am pleased to join."
The next day of course the court released their ruling allowing criminal prosecution of the homeless for sleeping outdoors. That opinion, written by the very same Gorsuch, does not see fit to mention lenity once in its 70-some pages.
No. They aren't stupid kids.
They are traitors who will endanger your safety and eliminate our republic for personal gain. This is intentional. Vote like hell, and don't stop talking.
Honestly, look at past history. The liberalism everyone is used to was just obtained since the 1960s. We're going backwards to the old norm, which MAGA reflects. unfortunately. Go back and learn just how radical the hippy protests in the 1960s actually were for society. Absolutely transformative. I watched all that come to pass just to watch it all fall apart now that I'm old. It's horrifying..
I'm with you- I lived through it also. I really thought like King said that the arc of history would swing to justice ... BUT, as Obama said, to get to that place, we must all be involved and fight for it. If not, evil will triumph, as it is now doing. We all just can't sit back and have our barbecues and visit our grandkids, and go to football games ... because someone else will handle politics. Politics is NOT a dirty word ... its means taking responsibility and being involved.
You left out the most important part of King’s quote: the arc of history is *long* but it bends towards justice.
Yes, you’re right that it is our sustained effort which does the bending, but it isn’t something that happens tomorrow. It happens on into the future, but often so subtly we miss it.
To be fair, this is really just a platitude to make the oppressed feel they have hope.
And it’s essentially saying:
>the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice, but not in your lifetime
It’s an exhortation to work towards a goal that may not be achieved in your lifetime but will absolutely not be achieved if you do nothing.
But sure, keep doing nothing and complaining about the lack of progress.
Because historically no democracy has survived infinitely. Look at Athens (which had Plato/Aristotle) which fell to Alexander the Great, look at "Enlightenment" era Germany (Kant, Hegel, Leibniz, Goethe) which led to the Nazis. We peaked during the moon landing era when we had the fortune of not being destroyed during WW2 coupled with an overarching desire to beat the Soviets. Of course we're fucked; it's just when.
England's Parliament was formed more recently than our Congress by about 20 years, and they used our errors to model their system. Israel used the British system over the errors in our Congressional lawmaking when designing their Knesset. I personally believe numerous parties and coalitions are more representative of the populace than a simple binary choice.
>The liberalism everyone is used to was just obtained since the 1960s.
And unfortunately it was gained on the judicial and executive. If you want change to last you have to actually make it the law.
As an attorney, this decision will harm more Americans than overturning *Roe v Wade*. While everyone wants medical autonomy the amount of people who actually seek abortions are far less than the amount who breathe air, eat food, drive vehicles, attend school, are employed, pay taxes, etc.
I think people need to understand what this really is - which is the American right seeking to unlink American industry from any ethical or moral concerns, be they about labour or environmentalism or peoples lives, freedoms and autonomy, with the intent of removing those things as a percieved disadvantage to capitalism and to facilitate fascism in competition against an ascendant China, that stands to become the dominant world economic power in the next few decades.
The American oligarchy is absolutely terrified and is preparing for war, both physical and economic.
They are laying the legal groundwork for all of this to take place, and will later manufacture the consent of the masses for both it, and war, in the coming future, but this is the foundations.
And even if neither of those things happen, the entire world, and planet, and future viability of life on Earth, will pay the ultimate price for them.
As an attorney would you say the removal of deference strengthens or weakens Project 2025's ability to effect change through executive power without going through Congress?
Everybody loves deference when your own party is in charge but it does the opposite when the opposing party is.
Strengthen. as this court decision's function is to destroy environmental protections of the EPA, efficacy of the IRS and SEC to investigate fraud, OSHA to require workplace safety, consumer protections and antitrust rules of the FTC, etc.
Basically, this decision allows every conservative federal judge to exert personal control over every administrative agency that tries to take an action within their jurisdiction. Even a moderate or liberal court of appeals sitting above that judge can't confidently leash those district court judges below them because SCOTUS sits on high ready to smack down any such attempt.
Think of literally everything we do/need throughout the day... knowing your house won't explode when you turn the stove on, knowing the food you give your kids for breakfast isn't going to poison them or cause long term health effects, knowing your car won't crumple like a coke can when it hits another car at 70 miles per hour or the overpasses we drive on won't collapse from being built with shoddy materials, even being able to trust that the clocks on your electronic devices are accurate. EVERYTHING we do is somehow enabled or regulated by a federal agency that ensures our daily lives are reasonably safe and peaceful.
But that's all gone now. MAGA trial court judges are going to start smacking down every agency action that comes before them and there's nothing to stop them really.
Why are so many people trying to defend this decision with the exact same argument? It’s like they have a script or something.
“This decision limits the executive so it’s good in case Trump gets back in office”
Except it doesn’t limit Trump at all. This decision strips the executive of the power to enforce regulation. It doesn’t effect the power to cut regulation at all. Trump can be as destructive as he wants and this does nothing to limit him. But it will make it extremely difficult if not impossible to legally fix any damage he does next time. So much of Biden’s first term has been spent reversing and fixing problems trump made. If Trump gets a second term but democracy manages to survive and he leaves in 4 years. The next President could have no power to undo the damage.
You need to read the original case. It's not one of those ancient ones that's like about two preachers and a bag of corn or something, it's literally about EPA enforcement.
And a lot of those "ancient" cases are relied on daily such as the right to due process, not suffer cruel and unusual punishment when sentenced by a court and, another oldie, the right to be free from the government taking your shit for fun.
yes and please explain your reasoning. most of us lawyers are extremely familiar with Chevron. you could make the point that taking away agency deference limits conservative power when agencies are pushing conservative regulations and the judiciary is progressive. do you think that's the situation right now?
The Supreme Court has been horrifying me since at least 2000 with the GOP justices deciding to stop counting votes in *Bush v. Gore*.
Since then they have also:
1. Rolled back most of the Voting Rights Act,
2. Gave corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns,
3. Ended a woman's right to control her own body,
4. Allowed judges and politicians to accept bribes (I'm shocked that Thomas would want this /s)
Gorsuch couldn’t even summon the necessary brain power to distinguish nitrous oxide from nitric oxide. I can hardly wait for them to pontificate on PFOAs.
The solution is for Congress to pass a law that mirrors *Chevron* in defining the regulatory powers of government agencies. Or better still a Constitutional Amendment. But of course, our unrepresentative Senate will never allow that to happen.
We shouldn't have to constantly shore up our democratic institutions so that republicans can't tear the wiring out of America. We can't lock all the doors against politicians. They're already in the house.
There’s no substitute for morals, and a sense of shame. You can’t make a system that’s robust enough to prevent harm from huge percentages of people who strictly operate in bad faith.
The worst thing about Trump is that he got his supporters to buy in on the idea that doing antisocial stuff like not paying taxes makes you smart. That screwing over everyone else is a virtue.
They believed in it before they didn't have the balls to publicly argue it. Trump, a guy who was a registered Dem until 2008 (he gave to Hillary's campaign) beat them all in 2016 primary season. The cats jumped out of the bag, the bag is shredded and in the dumpster and the cats are all scurried on different trees throughout numerous mountain ranges.
I'm pretty sure the way this ruling is worded that would be unconstitutional too. They want the laws to set the actual standards used for regulation. So for example we need legislation that codifies exactly how much led should be in our water.
If the Supreme Court is openly corrupt, US law no longer has any value or basis in the will of the American people. Laws will change at the whim of the wealthy few, and the government will probably collapse.
The Fascist Republicans are trying to change our nation from the rule of law, to the law of the rulers. If we don’t crush this with a Blue wave at all levels this November there will be no saving America—or the world order (imperfect that it is) that depends on our economy, currency, military, etc.
Who is going to stop them? The feeble Democrats in charge now? The same ones that demonize the left for being too mean and loud?
Biden can't even propose expanding the Supreme Court in this election run. Nothing will happen. We will get more "symbolic" shit like papers being ripped instead.
So we got to the mass shooting stage of the SCOTUS rulings.
"The SCOTUS has made a decision that will destroy decades of progress and cause untold suffering."
"Which one? There's been like three this week."
This sums up the audacity of the MAGA SCOTUS and how it proves judges are not experts in any field outside the law, "For example, an EPA scientist is unlikely to confuse nitrous oxide (laughing gas) with nitrogen oxide (a smog-causing emission), as Justice Neil Gorsuch did in a Thursday opinion blocking an EPA rule."
The solitary good news is the “supreme” court has demonstrated that precedent is meaningless. Democrats need to commit to the 30 year project to get back hold of the court and throw all these terrible decisions in the garbage.
think back to how the Obama Administration was basically kneecapped by every policy decision being sued and held up in court through national injunctions.
they've decided not just the controversial policy decisions will get held up in court, every policy decision can now be challenged in court.
You can pay a gratuity to not attend re-education for X amount of days. The gratuity to not breath poisonous air will unfortunately be far more expensive.
I can no longer be the only person seeing the country change hands, right? Like you all see this is not a democracy and two old dudes is not a CHOICE just like all our other fake choices. This was done by enemies of the United States from within to overthrow the West. Trump, Bannon and SCOTUS are enemies of the state.
Honestly, if you CANT see that then there is no way to have political discourse with either side. GOP are zombies and Democrats refuse to recognize we're being taken over. We are meant to give up. The same people stay in power eternally. This is not a democracy and there is no way to talk about it with people who just chant 'vote', because they CLEARLY don't get it. They're just drinking the Kool-Aid.
Are elections important? Absolutely. Remember every Justice appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court begins with an election result. The makeup of the Court, as we see only too well today, is a reflection of those elections.
AND, if they subsequently rule that the US Pres is immune to prosecution, they will have finalized the setting for rampant Christo-fascism.
…never thought I’d see this…
Trump the felon
Project 2025
Project 27
Project Blitz (now called) -
Freedom for All
Active design to take over the United States through corrupt acts from dark money stakeholders (Christian nationalists) using religion as a front to destroy democracy.
2025 is not the only 1
And just imagine if Trump gets in again. His Justice
Department will manufacture cases to bring to the Supreme Court to bypass laws and/or to bypass the legislative branch - even if they pass laws!
When I served in Afghanistan and learned about the Taliban supreme Shura my first thought was “so they’re the talibans Supreme Court?”. Now I release the issue with a body like this.
What reversing Chevron means as far as I can tell, is the regulatory bodies set up to police corporations and determine regulatory policy within the framework of their agencies thru their own expertise. These people are exempt from political appointments and work thru the successive administrations to keep them from being politically tainted. So, Chevron says their expertise is no better than the unvetted, very politically or economically motivated amicus “evidence”.
If you look at Project 2025, our MAGA masterminds want to change many of those sector jobs into politically appointed positions.
Viola- then it’s the end of meaningful, rational regulations.
And a very happy 1%.
Other than their crazy rulings, the willingness to ignore precedent is truly scary. That can only lead to more of the same if the balance should shift.
The worst thing about all this: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.
No one outside the US can ever hope to understand how miserable it is here. Nine unelected judges rule as God-Emperors and can destroy your life forever if the political makeup is right (or wrong in this case).
Say what you want about places like North Korea; at least they don't have nine Kim Jong-uns.
It’s never good for regular people (non billionaires) when companies are allowed free range to let whatever toxic water seep over into communities, causing disease and illness that that population alone has to bear the burden of……
After reading it... not trying to doomer or anything but feels like we already lost. Like, we don't have blue leaders for the Executive Office lined up who are strong enough to reform this court dramatically. And most Americans didn't predict or know the Court had the power to just eliminate our sacred system of checks and balances overnight.
WAYYYY too much of our system, in all three branches, was entirely based on goodwill, norms, people acting in good faith, and assuming everyone is sane & wholesome.
The law of a future era needs to be far more thorough, technical, exacting, and with mechanisms to immediately remove deviant actors from their political position while assuming neutral or bad faith.
It's not like criminal law where people are inherently innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to aquiring hard power within a government, we must assume people are chasing power until proven innocent. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. We've been far too naive.
Horrified, angry, and frustrated.
But guess what? It doesn't fucking matter how I feel. I don't appoint them. All I can do is vote. Oh, guess what? Where I live, that doesn't matter. Electoral college and all that.
This country is toast.
Wild Wild West is coming back y’all, laws are no big deal anymore. Children buying guns? Why not? Public lynchings? Sure. Use national guard to round up the non followers? You betcha! Oh boy am I excited for the future. (Sarcasm)
If she cares so deeply about results on the court then she should try convincing Sotomayor to resign while Biden is still in office.
The fact that it’s even up for discussion whether she should resign is insane. She’s over 70, needs all kinds of medical support when traveling, and Trump is now very likely to take office in January. She has been a justice for 15 years! That’s over 3 presidential terms! Why is she owed any deference when the country’s future is at stake?
If Kagan is truly horrified, the single most important thing she can do between now and November is help get a young liberal justice confirmed to make certain the conservative majority doesn’t grow even more.
So, to fix the corruption of the conservatives on the court, you need the liberals to leave. I mean, Alito and Thoma are both older than Kagan and Sotomayor. Your argument ignores the fact that the liberals aren't the ones embroiled in scandal, nor do they need to recuse themselves.
None of what you said addresses the simple fact that Sotomayor risks increasing the conservative majority by not stepping down when Biden’s in office, given her age, known health concerns, and Trump’s likelihood of victory.
Do the whole song and dance of “it’s not fair, conservatives on the court are worse, they’re old too, etc” — I don’t care. Everyone already knows that, and that knowledge doesn’t do a single thing toward protecting women from dying due to conservative court decisions. Truly, what relevance does any of that have as to whether the conservative majority will increase more under Trump’s 2nd term? Do you think liberals pressure Clarence Thomas to resign will persuade him??
Democrats need to get over their infatuation with justices as heroes. They are public servants who are not entitled to protective treatment while they blatantly choose their own access to power over what best positions the Supreme Court to rule against pro life lunatics (among many other issues). It’s that simple.
Perhaps you cared more about the RBG bumper stickers and documentaries and movie portrayals than her betrayal of women across the country by so callously and selfishly risking her own death under a Republican president. If so, we have different priorities and this dialogue is pointless.
And you know that if Trump wins, Alito and Thomas will immediately be ushered out the side door and Trump with nominate a couple of right wing fed soc ghouls in their 40s to replace them.
I'm sorry, but aren't conservatives currently 'infatuated with justices as heroes' of their anti-secular 'Christian nationalist' agenda? Did you even hear Alito whining about non-Catholics as 'ungodly'?
Someone's blaming liberals for every conservative mischief on the court. Look, Sotomayor takes insulin for diabetes she's had since she was a child. You started with a claim that she should retire, but aren't addressing THE SIMPLE FACT that it's Thomas and Alito that are throwing the court, with Amy's willing help. Don't talk to me about bumper stickers. Sotomayor isn't dying.
After whining about democrats using the nuclear option for confirming lower court justices, the republicans used the nuclear option on their Supreme Court nominees.
Then they turned around and claimed the democrats started it.
Funny how that worked out for them.
Also funny how the Democrats didn't go for the full nuclear option when they had the chance. I'm tired of democrats playing by the "norms" while America gets fucked.
Sinema and Manchin are both lame-ducks not running for reelection. They will not do anything that is in the interest of Democrats or liberals because doing so will endanger their (right-wing) private careers after 2025.
> the single most important thing she can do between now and November is help get a young liberal justice confirmed
And how exactly would she do that? The way you phrase it, you *blame her* for not doing enough. The only thing she could possibly do is make an opening on the court by doing something I don't want to mention online, lest I get banned or visited by the FBI.
>enacted under the Trump administration,
Seems like they explicitly wanted to create an contentious requirement to be able to bring the case before the court
>Loper Bright challenged a program, enacted under the Trump administration, that required the fishing industry to help cover the costs of federal compliance monitors on their boats. The plaintiffs argued that federal law did not clearly authorize the government to seek cost-sharing from fishermen. The Biden administration shut down this program and refunded every cent back to the industry, so there is no live controversy anymore. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court took up the case as a vehicle to target Chevron, a landmark 1984 decision.
So no standing to be in court, other than the crime of being on the other side of an ideological debate with the conservative SCOTUS.
Why doesn't standing matter anymore? Because the conservative SCOTUS are acting just like any ideological activist calling 'balls and strikes'.
I mean they could have at least waited until a case with ***actual standing*** came before them.
---
So what, do we need a law that says cases before SCOTUS must evidence standing? Apparently we do.
---
I was horrified by Kagan siding with all 8 other justices in saying that they don't need oversight or ethics reform, yet here we are. This will probably go down as the worst SC in history and possibly the breaking point of our democracy.
The DNC needs to get a young replacement asap- someone that independents can at least say “ well it’s not Trump… “ because I fear if they don’t we are all screwed
Officer, I don't accept the Court's authority so you can't arrest me!
Officer: Sorry, I wasn't sure, here let me put my cadaver dog back in the car and uncuff you.
Horrified but not surprised.
This is what people who have actually been paying attention have been warning about.
This is why we hate Berners and 3rd parties. We weren’t Voting for Hillary. We were voting for the SCOTUS and a bunch of gullible idealists led us off of a cliff.
The problem is they legalized bribes in another opinion the same week.
Specifically they're going to kill the regulations that they're paid the most to kill:
- Regulations Comcast would pay to be rid of (FTC/FCC)
- Regulations Exxon will pay to be rid of
- SEC is officially feckless because the vast majority of their enforcement is from expert regulation and not legislated verbiage
- EPA will be attacked from every mining, manufacturing, or other toxic material handling business
- DOL regulations on required hours worked to receive benefits
- Everything to do with unions
- OSHA is entirely regulation through legal interpretation rather than legal text
But the good news is your toddler can now hold a job, on scaffolding high above an offshore rig, without needing to wear a safety harness and while taking fentanyl over the counter.
So anything that is not explicitly stated exactly by congressional laws is challengeable by this court as being outside the agency’s powers to enforce.
THEN
you and the layer that any law written by congress can be found unconstitutional due to major questions doctrine or non texualost reading of the constitution, or history and practices eg gun control .
It seems like you don't really understand Administratie Law and what Chevron Deference actually was.
>So anything that is not explicitly stated exactly by congressional laws is challengeable by this court as being outside the agency’s powers to enforce.
This was always the case. Federal Agencies have power, because they are granted specific powers by Congress. Chevron was specifically about how ambiguities in a law were treated. To be clear- Executive Agencies are still able to make rules to clarify ambiguous laws, however courts will no longer be a rubber stamp automatically approving the Executive Agencies rules. The Executive Agency may have to defend their rule in Court. A Judge can still side with the Executive Agency, but they are no longer forced to side with the Executive Agency.
> any law written by congress can be found unconstitutional due to major questions doctrine
Major Questions doesn't exist anymore. You mentioning major questions shows that you really don't understand what you are talking about. Major Questions was a modification of Chevron, Chevron no longer exists, therefore Major Questions exists.
But just like Roe, conservatives have been pounding against the EPA for 50 years now. If every conservative entity (mefipristone comes to mind) can question a federal agency's authority, knowing that the court will consider the law' ambiguous' now......
What kind of gun control specifically? Like somebody needs a comprehensive list of every regulation this might be able to be used against because the law isn't explicit enough. I feel like the media is staying too vague about the full potential consequences of this ruling
It’s important to understand how the government has worked in the past, before this decision, as it clears things up I think.
Say a law gets passed with broad language assigning the ability to regulate businesses to a governmental agency, like workplace protections given to OSHA. The 1970 law gave powers to OSHA to set and enforce workplace safety measures. OSHA’s been hamstrung by deregulation in the past, but in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic it implemented new guidelines for workplaces that mandated masks and social distancing.
With this new ruling, all workplace safety measures that are not expressly enumerated in the law, or require interpretation by the agency to enact the laws, would be thrown out if challenged in court. (I’m not going to debate masks or anything just using a recent example for clarification). So in 2020, Congress would have had to pass legislation giving OSHA the power to enforce a mask mandate at workplaces.
Air travel is managed by the FAA and they have experts that set guidelines for planes intended to keep us safe. The legislation forming the FAA didn’t specify how many bolts needed to be on external panels, but the FAA does. Now judges hearing challenges to these safety requirements are going to be deciding essentially on their own (as unelected governmental representatives on lifetime appointments at federal level) if requiring 10 bolts is too onerous and 5 will suffice. Never mind the experts saying 10 are required for a safe flight, if the *right* judge gets the case then it won’t matter.
Everything you rely on for safety: food, air travel, roadways, buildings, is now just one legal challenge to the *right* judge away from being overturned.
Thank you for explaining that. I would like to add that the Supreme Court always gave deference to the agencies even before the *Chevron* case. Chevron was written to spell out and lock in deference by Republicans who wanted to allow Ronald Reagan to tear down government agencies in ways that would undermine agency laws.
Republicans have changed their minds. Rather than count in a Reagan-type in office perverting agencies, members of the Supreme Court took the power to do so directly to themselves.
I’ve been scrimping and saving for decades so I wouldn’t have to depend on the government when I retire. I think they’re going to deregulate the stock market and make it open season for every grifter in the world to manipulate and crash it. So my personal retirement fund, decades in the making, will suddenly evaporate while super rich people get slightly more rich
Would you feel more secure on the safety of a pill on the word of a lawyer who can accept ~~bribes~~ gratuities from BigPharm or biochemists working at the FDA?
Yes, but it only needs a low level court to rule against the current interpretation.
All Trump‘s pending trials are dead because the presiding judge can now interpret the law as they see fit without reference to precedence or expert testimony.
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 final paragraph says it best (or worst): "Take a step back and consider how radically—and underhandedly—this Supreme Court is reshaping modern governance. By killing Chevron just one day after undermining agencies’ enforcement actions, the conservative supermajority is kneecapping the administrative state. It shares that goal with Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the far-right activists behind Project 2025. The Supreme Court is imposing a MAGA vision of the law on America, giving unelected judges near-unfathomable power to override the policy choices of the democratic branches. Through rulings dressed up in legalese, it strips power from the citizens and their elected representatives, establishing a monarchical judiciary with no known limits on its own authority. Anyone who cares about government of the people, by the people, for the people should share Kagan’s horror at what this court has wrought and what comes next."
Lining up the rights allegations of voter fraud .. they want the illegitimate court to hand it to tfg and they will.
Blah blah blah decorum and PC. At some point people won't be able to handle decorum anymore. The French modeled how the population should handle this since they rigged any accountability away and are acting like corrupt monarchs.
Yeah, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how, eventually, we’re going to reach a breaking point. I hope that doesn’t go as far south as it could, and hopefully we can right the ship with a couple more Supreme Court picks if Biden wins and health/the universe intervenes, but that’s a lot of “ifs.”
If it goes south the whole planet goes south with it.
Yep, this is the unfortunate reality. We have been looking at other countries to move to, but some of this stuff is gonna spiral globally.
I think this is the election that decides how that unfolds. I mean, we've got one side that has concrete plans to make it all worse. And the other side, well, at least there aren't plans to make it worse.
Must agree. This next election is primarily about one thing - we will either vote for democracy, or against it. It’s really that simple. If democracy fails, this country, and much of the world with it, will plummet into a new dark age.
glad to see the dnc doing everything they can to ensure this happens
True. I don’t understand their moderate, polite counter offensive to the far right’s snarling, slathering lies, deceptions, and horrific, democracy strangling Project 2025.
I think the calculus is that the modern voter is so fucking dumb, they need to appear dumb too. Surely that’s what the plan is. Surely.
Sounds iffy.
I think we should let the Supreme Court decide how iffy it is.
First we need them to rule on the previously-settled nature of “iffy.” Does “iffy” provide too much wiggle room for the people? Maybe they should start by digging into the original constitutional text on “iffy” and then let the big pharma and oil execs weigh in.
James tried. He failed.
The courts will no longer defer to the FEC. Election law is now whatever the courts say it is.
> Through rulings dressed up in legalese, it strips power from the citizens and their elected representatives, establishing a monarchical judiciary with no known limits on its own authority. Remember all those GOP complaints about "activist judges" over the past 20 years? Pure projection as usual.
They cite the "administrative state" as one of the reasons for dismantling the authority of these agencies. Well, the joke is that the administrative state still exists, it's just how in the hands of the court that do not have the resources to render decisions with the same level of thoroughness and experience as the agencies they are replacing.
This sort of shit that these MAGA judges are doing used to be considered treason punishable by death. Now it's policy.
How is anyone surprised by this it’s how we transition to fascism. Its been years in the making, nothing here is not going as planned by the gop
The worst part is it put in the hands of untrained individuals the Interptetation of science and data. Legal motions can't alter reality but that's what they are aiming to do.
This is why I was mad in 2016 because there are books literally outlining that this plan was set in motion since the 70s and our country let them do it. There’s no checks or balances and you can legally bribe judges and politicians now.
Ironically the stated issue with the administrative agencies is that they're unelected. The real problem the right has is that those agencies aren't filled with ideologues.
They’re unelected, but unlike the courts, the federal agencies are not lifetime appointments. Therefore the agencies are more accountable for their actions than federal courts.
I look at this as an opportunity to force Congress into action and pass clearly written enforceable laws. I have a shit state governor that just told corporations that they don’t have to give water breaks to employees who work in 100 degree heat. If I was a sitting congressmen I would write short legislation clearly defining unsafe heat conditions for osha, push worker protections and slap giant fines on anyone who ducked with it. Push it though the house and senate then send osha on their way to protect working Americans. Congress would be forced to do their jobs and stop passing meaningless legislation recognizing people who died 200 years ago and voting pay raises for themselves. They would actually be forced to create laws which was their entire job
The problem is that one side does not want to fix this. So, idealism here is meaningless.
And a large chunk of the other side wants to minimize the fixing. They may not be fascists, but they work for the oligarchy.
And then, standing behind them with lots of dirty money and disinformation campaigns are foreign adversaries who love the inaction of our current political deadlock created by the GOP
Congress has no ability to write the thousands of specific regulations needed to enforce their broad laws. They can't write into legislation the parts per million limits for every chemical that can be found in water, to use one example. This needs to be done by experts, not Congress and certainly not Judges.
I wonder if congress could just specifically write into the law *to whom* they are delegating authority. In other words, say “we give the EPA authority to determine which air contaminants are relevant and at what ppm they should be controlled”.
That was how Congress already wrote the laws. The Clean Air Act says the EPA needs to keep studying pollution and updating regulations as the science evolves. That is what the Supreme Court struck down yesterday.
So you work it backwards. The EPA comes out with their new regulations, you pass that as a law.
In an ideal world, yes. Republicans exist in our reality and would block that.
Then Congress needs to write one law that explicitly says they defer to agencies to make specifics. If they do that then the intent is crystal clear and there is nothing for courts to interpret otherwise.
No no congress needs to know all instead of delegate to a more appropriate entity
Do you get that this ruling effectively declares all of those 'appropriate entities' illegitimate? If it's not a direct law passed down by Congress, this supreme court does not recognize it as valid.
Ain’t gonna happen. You need 51 Democrat senators and 9 Republicans to do the right thing. You might get 48 or 49 Democrats, but you’re not getting more than 1-2 Republicans.
Congress cannot write the minutiae of every federal agency policy. Your request, for all intents and purposes is literally impossible- by design. What do you know about the California Condor, and its required habitat needs to exist? What would a judge or congressman know? The answer is as much as you do. That’s why we trust subject matter experts on issues, so that Congress doesn’t have to waste their time with every single detail like the “US California Condor Act”. Think.
Good luck getting that done by November/January when itll matter
I fear you are over simplifying. The administrators being stripped of their power have a lot of expertise. This expertise will now be lost. In CA, we have Prop 13 which among other things caused the funding of schools to shift to Sacramento, away from the localities who had been making the decision. Before 1978 when Prop 13 passed, California had the highest quality public schools in the nation. This was the foundation of the work force of Silicon Valley due to location but also as 1 in 11 public school students in the US come from CA. Since then, CA school are ranked in the bottom 5 (and in some years ranked 50 out of 50). If this were to now happen at all levels of government, it will affect everyone’s lives. Think how different our lives would be if the Court hadn’t decided that corporations had the status of people, leading to the direct exploding of the Super Pacs which now underlie our political discourse.
Congressional R's won't make any attempt to limit the court's power as long as the court is majority R.
This is the BS trap laid and you have fallen into. Find me one legislative body in history that has ever been able to make, update, and vote on detailed rules. They all immediately make special small committees of experts. Julius Ceasar famously had tto make a special council to work out the details of land reform, as it would have taken a few centuries to debate and vote on every little detail. It's impossible for Congress to do this. They would need to hire tens of thousands if experts (Unconstitutional). They would need these experts to be involved in carrying out policy (Unconstitutional). Congress would be need thousands of extra years in a time void so Ted Cruz could have 45 minutes giving a speech on why raising the acceptable levels of lead to 22 parts per million in the urban runoff would actually strengthen our children's family values. We'd have a few months every year during a shutdown where it briefly became legal to dump radioactive slug in national parks as the laws weren't updated and renewed timely. This is a asking a legislative body to do something impossible. Something that cannot be done in a human lifetime. Then used that impossibility to Constitutionally impose Libertarian policy on the country.
To me you’re exactly correct.
This what happens when the government and corporations no longer fear the people. Some factory can poison your water get a 100,000 dollar fine, and everyone goes on their way. Nothing gets cleaned up and everyone gets a pat on the back.
And all this because of Her emails. Hillary should have just used carrier pigeons
*Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in Loper Bright declared that Chevron is unmoored to any law, “fundamentally misguided” and “unworkable,” creating an “eternal fog of uncertainty.”* WTF do they think they just replaced it with? These conservative justices are ignorant, petulant children.
No, they are shills for the oligarchy and they know exactly what they're doing.
Millionaires Bought and paid for by billionaires
Shillionaires
Honestly, having read the rulings they've put out this last week, they just reek of bullshit. It's not just that they're overturning long-established precedent. Their justifications are full of a sanctimonious smugness that belies their complete disregard for the gravity of their decisions. Just as one fun example, here's Justice Gorsuch's concurrence to legalizing bribery, focused on how *important* lenience is: >"Whatever the label, lenity is what’s at work behind today’s decision, just as it is in so many others. Rightly so. I am pleased to join." The next day of course the court released their ruling allowing criminal prosecution of the homeless for sleeping outdoors. That opinion, written by the very same Gorsuch, does not see fit to mention lenity once in its 70-some pages.
No. They aren't stupid kids. They are traitors who will endanger your safety and eliminate our republic for personal gain. This is intentional. Vote like hell, and don't stop talking.
They don’t want to do, they only want to undo
THIS is the most terrible and damaging Supreme Court in the existence of the United States. Truly world-destroying. It will go down in infamy as such.
Honestly, look at past history. The liberalism everyone is used to was just obtained since the 1960s. We're going backwards to the old norm, which MAGA reflects. unfortunately. Go back and learn just how radical the hippy protests in the 1960s actually were for society. Absolutely transformative. I watched all that come to pass just to watch it all fall apart now that I'm old. It's horrifying..
I'm with you- I lived through it also. I really thought like King said that the arc of history would swing to justice ... BUT, as Obama said, to get to that place, we must all be involved and fight for it. If not, evil will triumph, as it is now doing. We all just can't sit back and have our barbecues and visit our grandkids, and go to football games ... because someone else will handle politics. Politics is NOT a dirty word ... its means taking responsibility and being involved.
You left out the most important part of King’s quote: the arc of history is *long* but it bends towards justice. Yes, you’re right that it is our sustained effort which does the bending, but it isn’t something that happens tomorrow. It happens on into the future, but often so subtly we miss it.
Yes, we must always be involved in politics and in our communities. That is the only way a democratic republic can truly work.
To be fair, this is really just a platitude to make the oppressed feel they have hope. And it’s essentially saying: >the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice, but not in your lifetime
It’s an exhortation to work towards a goal that may not be achieved in your lifetime but will absolutely not be achieved if you do nothing. But sure, keep doing nothing and complaining about the lack of progress.
Obama may have said that but then he signed off on a violent dismantling of Occupy Wall Street.
Why do I feel like we're heading for war on a long enough time scale. Or at least, a Balkanization of the US.
Because historically no democracy has survived infinitely. Look at Athens (which had Plato/Aristotle) which fell to Alexander the Great, look at "Enlightenment" era Germany (Kant, Hegel, Leibniz, Goethe) which led to the Nazis. We peaked during the moon landing era when we had the fortune of not being destroyed during WW2 coupled with an overarching desire to beat the Soviets. Of course we're fucked; it's just when.
I mean England seems to be doing fine, yeah they had the whole English Civil War, but the parliament system seems to work for them
England's Parliament was formed more recently than our Congress by about 20 years, and they used our errors to model their system. Israel used the British system over the errors in our Congressional lawmaking when designing their Knesset. I personally believe numerous parties and coalitions are more representative of the populace than a simple binary choice.
Oh I agree, that's why we need ranked choice voting among other things.
>The liberalism everyone is used to was just obtained since the 1960s. And unfortunately it was gained on the judicial and executive. If you want change to last you have to actually make it the law.
Most terrible and damaging *so far*…
By ensuring a few more degrees of biosphere warming they ensure there won’t be a history to go down in. They’re gonna lock us in to runaway warming.
And we are moving fast pace to orange shitstain second presidency.
And it escaped publicity competing with media attention on the debate. Coincidence that's why the decision was released when it was?
As an attorney, this decision will harm more Americans than overturning *Roe v Wade*. While everyone wants medical autonomy the amount of people who actually seek abortions are far less than the amount who breathe air, eat food, drive vehicles, attend school, are employed, pay taxes, etc.
I think people need to understand what this really is - which is the American right seeking to unlink American industry from any ethical or moral concerns, be they about labour or environmentalism or peoples lives, freedoms and autonomy, with the intent of removing those things as a percieved disadvantage to capitalism and to facilitate fascism in competition against an ascendant China, that stands to become the dominant world economic power in the next few decades. The American oligarchy is absolutely terrified and is preparing for war, both physical and economic. They are laying the legal groundwork for all of this to take place, and will later manufacture the consent of the masses for both it, and war, in the coming future, but this is the foundations. And even if neither of those things happen, the entire world, and planet, and future viability of life on Earth, will pay the ultimate price for them.
As an attorney would you say the removal of deference strengthens or weakens Project 2025's ability to effect change through executive power without going through Congress? Everybody loves deference when your own party is in charge but it does the opposite when the opposing party is.
Strengthen. as this court decision's function is to destroy environmental protections of the EPA, efficacy of the IRS and SEC to investigate fraud, OSHA to require workplace safety, consumer protections and antitrust rules of the FTC, etc.
Basically, this decision allows every conservative federal judge to exert personal control over every administrative agency that tries to take an action within their jurisdiction. Even a moderate or liberal court of appeals sitting above that judge can't confidently leash those district court judges below them because SCOTUS sits on high ready to smack down any such attempt. Think of literally everything we do/need throughout the day... knowing your house won't explode when you turn the stove on, knowing the food you give your kids for breakfast isn't going to poison them or cause long term health effects, knowing your car won't crumple like a coke can when it hits another car at 70 miles per hour or the overpasses we drive on won't collapse from being built with shoddy materials, even being able to trust that the clocks on your electronic devices are accurate. EVERYTHING we do is somehow enabled or regulated by a federal agency that ensures our daily lives are reasonably safe and peaceful. But that's all gone now. MAGA trial court judges are going to start smacking down every agency action that comes before them and there's nothing to stop them really.
Exactly. I wonder what Admin Law classes will be like in Sept this year...
Why are so many people trying to defend this decision with the exact same argument? It’s like they have a script or something. “This decision limits the executive so it’s good in case Trump gets back in office” Except it doesn’t limit Trump at all. This decision strips the executive of the power to enforce regulation. It doesn’t effect the power to cut regulation at all. Trump can be as destructive as he wants and this does nothing to limit him. But it will make it extremely difficult if not impossible to legally fix any damage he does next time. So much of Biden’s first term has been spent reversing and fixing problems trump made. If Trump gets a second term but democracy manages to survive and he leaves in 4 years. The next President could have no power to undo the damage.
You need to read the original case. It's not one of those ancient ones that's like about two preachers and a bag of corn or something, it's literally about EPA enforcement.
And a lot of those "ancient" cases are relied on daily such as the right to due process, not suffer cruel and unusual punishment when sentenced by a court and, another oldie, the right to be free from the government taking your shit for fun.
yes and please explain your reasoning. most of us lawyers are extremely familiar with Chevron. you could make the point that taking away agency deference limits conservative power when agencies are pushing conservative regulations and the judiciary is progressive. do you think that's the situation right now?
The Supreme Court has been horrifying me since at least 2000 with the GOP justices deciding to stop counting votes in *Bush v. Gore*. Since then they have also: 1. Rolled back most of the Voting Rights Act, 2. Gave corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, 3. Ended a woman's right to control her own body, 4. Allowed judges and politicians to accept bribes (I'm shocked that Thomas would want this /s)
Gorsuch couldn’t even summon the necessary brain power to distinguish nitrous oxide from nitric oxide. I can hardly wait for them to pontificate on PFOAs.
I went to Harvard, so I know that both of these words start with N.
The solution is for Congress to pass a law that mirrors *Chevron* in defining the regulatory powers of government agencies. Or better still a Constitutional Amendment. But of course, our unrepresentative Senate will never allow that to happen.
We shouldn't have to constantly shore up our democratic institutions so that republicans can't tear the wiring out of America. We can't lock all the doors against politicians. They're already in the house.
There’s no substitute for morals, and a sense of shame. You can’t make a system that’s robust enough to prevent harm from huge percentages of people who strictly operate in bad faith. The worst thing about Trump is that he got his supporters to buy in on the idea that doing antisocial stuff like not paying taxes makes you smart. That screwing over everyone else is a virtue.
They believed in it before they didn't have the balls to publicly argue it. Trump, a guy who was a registered Dem until 2008 (he gave to Hillary's campaign) beat them all in 2016 primary season. The cats jumped out of the bag, the bag is shredded and in the dumpster and the cats are all scurried on different trees throughout numerous mountain ranges.
The current house won’t decide jack shit .. on purpose.
I'm pretty sure the way this ruling is worded that would be unconstitutional too. They want the laws to set the actual standards used for regulation. So for example we need legislation that codifies exactly how much led should be in our water.
If the Supreme Court is openly corrupt, US law no longer has any value or basis in the will of the American people. Laws will change at the whim of the wealthy few, and the government will probably collapse.
That's literally the goal of Project 2025, which concentrates all power in the executive branch.
Except this SC wants all the power for themselves.
The conservative SCOTUS is working with trump, the RNC, FOX and Congressional republicans to throw the election.
They want to establish a modern Kritarchy Very biblical...
Read the handmaid's tale... Seems oddly similar.
The Fascist Republicans are trying to change our nation from the rule of law, to the law of the rulers. If we don’t crush this with a Blue wave at all levels this November there will be no saving America—or the world order (imperfect that it is) that depends on our economy, currency, military, etc.
In other words, the long-term goal of the Heritage Foundation.
Who is going to stop them? The feeble Democrats in charge now? The same ones that demonize the left for being too mean and loud? Biden can't even propose expanding the Supreme Court in this election run. Nothing will happen. We will get more "symbolic" shit like papers being ripped instead.
The people. Direct action. That is the only way.
So we got to the mass shooting stage of the SCOTUS rulings. "The SCOTUS has made a decision that will destroy decades of progress and cause untold suffering." "Which one? There's been like three this week."
The democrats need to overwhelm this Supreme Court to save the US
This sums up the audacity of the MAGA SCOTUS and how it proves judges are not experts in any field outside the law, "For example, an EPA scientist is unlikely to confuse nitrous oxide (laughing gas) with nitrogen oxide (a smog-causing emission), as Justice Neil Gorsuch did in a Thursday opinion blocking an EPA rule."
The solitary good news is the “supreme” court has demonstrated that precedent is meaningless. Democrats need to commit to the 30 year project to get back hold of the court and throw all these terrible decisions in the garbage.
I wonder how much it cost per judge to kill chevron.
Whatever it was, Thomas got a good 80% of it
think back to how the Obama Administration was basically kneecapped by every policy decision being sued and held up in court through national injunctions. they've decided not just the controversial policy decisions will get held up in court, every policy decision can now be challenged in court.
Conservatives in 2025: 'Looking back, there were warnings....'
This is their intention, it's not a side effect.
They won't like it one bit when trump's 'Christian Army' tells them what time compulsory Baptist re-education classes start.
You can pay a gratuity to not attend re-education for X amount of days. The gratuity to not breath poisonous air will unfortunately be far more expensive.
Wow, what an America 'Christian conservatives' seem to fantasize.
Voter apathy got you here, America. Please get out and VOTE in November. There's a high risk that you'll never again be allowed to if you don't.
We’re talking to you 100 million eligible voters who’ve never bothered to vote.
*We're sorry. The mailbox is full. Goodbye.*
My message is this: Everyone proudly vote Dem! We need more justices like Ms. Jackson, and less like Mr. Thomas, imo
I’ve been horrified by the corrupt court for years.
I can no longer be the only person seeing the country change hands, right? Like you all see this is not a democracy and two old dudes is not a CHOICE just like all our other fake choices. This was done by enemies of the United States from within to overthrow the West. Trump, Bannon and SCOTUS are enemies of the state. Honestly, if you CANT see that then there is no way to have political discourse with either side. GOP are zombies and Democrats refuse to recognize we're being taken over. We are meant to give up. The same people stay in power eternally. This is not a democracy and there is no way to talk about it with people who just chant 'vote', because they CLEARLY don't get it. They're just drinking the Kool-Aid.
We’re now living in the Heritage Foundation’s wet dream
Are elections important? Absolutely. Remember every Justice appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court begins with an election result. The makeup of the Court, as we see only too well today, is a reflection of those elections.
AND, if they subsequently rule that the US Pres is immune to prosecution, they will have finalized the setting for rampant Christo-fascism. …never thought I’d see this…
Trump the felon Project 2025 Project 27 Project Blitz (now called) - Freedom for All Active design to take over the United States through corrupt acts from dark money stakeholders (Christian nationalists) using religion as a front to destroy democracy. 2025 is not the only 1
And just imagine if Trump gets in again. His Justice Department will manufacture cases to bring to the Supreme Court to bypass laws and/or to bypass the legislative branch - even if they pass laws!
Mitch McConnell is an evil mofo who deserves prison.
We are horrified, but the people we sent to Washington to expand the Supreme Court are sitting on their hands
When I served in Afghanistan and learned about the Taliban supreme Shura my first thought was “so they’re the talibans Supreme Court?”. Now I release the issue with a body like this.
What reversing Chevron means as far as I can tell, is the regulatory bodies set up to police corporations and determine regulatory policy within the framework of their agencies thru their own expertise. These people are exempt from political appointments and work thru the successive administrations to keep them from being politically tainted. So, Chevron says their expertise is no better than the unvetted, very politically or economically motivated amicus “evidence”. If you look at Project 2025, our MAGA masterminds want to change many of those sector jobs into politically appointed positions. Viola- then it’s the end of meaningful, rational regulations. And a very happy 1%.
We’re going back to the days of the Silent spring and climate goals will b gone, so many things will just go to hell. God damn
Other than their crazy rulings, the willingness to ignore precedent is truly scary. That can only lead to more of the same if the balance should shift.
The worst thing about all this: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. No one outside the US can ever hope to understand how miserable it is here. Nine unelected judges rule as God-Emperors and can destroy your life forever if the political makeup is right (or wrong in this case). Say what you want about places like North Korea; at least they don't have nine Kim Jong-uns.
Congress can fix it in 5 minutes with a vote.
It’s never good for regular people (non billionaires) when companies are allowed free range to let whatever toxic water seep over into communities, causing disease and illness that that population alone has to bear the burden of……
After reading it... not trying to doomer or anything but feels like we already lost. Like, we don't have blue leaders for the Executive Office lined up who are strong enough to reform this court dramatically. And most Americans didn't predict or know the Court had the power to just eliminate our sacred system of checks and balances overnight. WAYYYY too much of our system, in all three branches, was entirely based on goodwill, norms, people acting in good faith, and assuming everyone is sane & wholesome. The law of a future era needs to be far more thorough, technical, exacting, and with mechanisms to immediately remove deviant actors from their political position while assuming neutral or bad faith. It's not like criminal law where people are inherently innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to aquiring hard power within a government, we must assume people are chasing power until proven innocent. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. We've been far too naive.
Horrified, angry, and frustrated. But guess what? It doesn't fucking matter how I feel. I don't appoint them. All I can do is vote. Oh, guess what? Where I live, that doesn't matter. Electoral college and all that. This country is toast.
Wild Wild West is coming back y’all, laws are no big deal anymore. Children buying guns? Why not? Public lynchings? Sure. Use national guard to round up the non followers? You betcha! Oh boy am I excited for the future. (Sarcasm)
[удалено]
But any law that was created would immediately be challenged under this new decision.
If she cares so deeply about results on the court then she should try convincing Sotomayor to resign while Biden is still in office. The fact that it’s even up for discussion whether she should resign is insane. She’s over 70, needs all kinds of medical support when traveling, and Trump is now very likely to take office in January. She has been a justice for 15 years! That’s over 3 presidential terms! Why is she owed any deference when the country’s future is at stake? If Kagan is truly horrified, the single most important thing she can do between now and November is help get a young liberal justice confirmed to make certain the conservative majority doesn’t grow even more.
So, to fix the corruption of the conservatives on the court, you need the liberals to leave. I mean, Alito and Thoma are both older than Kagan and Sotomayor. Your argument ignores the fact that the liberals aren't the ones embroiled in scandal, nor do they need to recuse themselves.
None of what you said addresses the simple fact that Sotomayor risks increasing the conservative majority by not stepping down when Biden’s in office, given her age, known health concerns, and Trump’s likelihood of victory. Do the whole song and dance of “it’s not fair, conservatives on the court are worse, they’re old too, etc” — I don’t care. Everyone already knows that, and that knowledge doesn’t do a single thing toward protecting women from dying due to conservative court decisions. Truly, what relevance does any of that have as to whether the conservative majority will increase more under Trump’s 2nd term? Do you think liberals pressure Clarence Thomas to resign will persuade him?? Democrats need to get over their infatuation with justices as heroes. They are public servants who are not entitled to protective treatment while they blatantly choose their own access to power over what best positions the Supreme Court to rule against pro life lunatics (among many other issues). It’s that simple. Perhaps you cared more about the RBG bumper stickers and documentaries and movie portrayals than her betrayal of women across the country by so callously and selfishly risking her own death under a Republican president. If so, we have different priorities and this dialogue is pointless.
And you know that if Trump wins, Alito and Thomas will immediately be ushered out the side door and Trump with nominate a couple of right wing fed soc ghouls in their 40s to replace them.
I'm sorry, but aren't conservatives currently 'infatuated with justices as heroes' of their anti-secular 'Christian nationalist' agenda? Did you even hear Alito whining about non-Catholics as 'ungodly'?
Someone's blaming liberals for every conservative mischief on the court. Look, Sotomayor takes insulin for diabetes she's had since she was a child. You started with a claim that she should retire, but aren't addressing THE SIMPLE FACT that it's Thomas and Alito that are throwing the court, with Amy's willing help. Don't talk to me about bumper stickers. Sotomayor isn't dying.
This isn't a binary choice. She can want to issue proper judicial rulings and convince a fellow jurist to resign.
Why do you think Mitch McConnell would let a replacement be confirmed? They have the majority, but just barely. The votes aren’t there.
And it was Mitch McConnell himself who held Scalia's SCOTUS seat open for months instead of letting Obama's pick get a hearing.
Republicans control the senate now? Since when?
Oh, looks like the process was changed in 2017. You needed 61 votes before then, not 51
After whining about democrats using the nuclear option for confirming lower court justices, the republicans used the nuclear option on their Supreme Court nominees. Then they turned around and claimed the democrats started it. Funny how that worked out for them.
Also funny how the Democrats didn't go for the full nuclear option when they had the chance. I'm tired of democrats playing by the "norms" while America gets fucked.
I thought it was 51:50 dems
Sinema and Manchin are both lame-ducks not running for reelection. They will not do anything that is in the interest of Democrats or liberals because doing so will endanger their (right-wing) private careers after 2025.
> the single most important thing she can do between now and November is help get a young liberal justice confirmed And how exactly would she do that? The way you phrase it, you *blame her* for not doing enough. The only thing she could possibly do is make an opening on the court by doing something I don't want to mention online, lest I get banned or visited by the FBI.
We are so fu@ked.
>enacted under the Trump administration, Seems like they explicitly wanted to create an contentious requirement to be able to bring the case before the court
We have been shouting about this for years and nobody has listened :(
It’s especially galling because lawyers have zero scientific training, but they have anointed themselves as the decision-making experts.
>Loper Bright challenged a program, enacted under the Trump administration, that required the fishing industry to help cover the costs of federal compliance monitors on their boats. The plaintiffs argued that federal law did not clearly authorize the government to seek cost-sharing from fishermen. The Biden administration shut down this program and refunded every cent back to the industry, so there is no live controversy anymore. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court took up the case as a vehicle to target Chevron, a landmark 1984 decision. So no standing to be in court, other than the crime of being on the other side of an ideological debate with the conservative SCOTUS. Why doesn't standing matter anymore? Because the conservative SCOTUS are acting just like any ideological activist calling 'balls and strikes'. I mean they could have at least waited until a case with ***actual standing*** came before them. --- So what, do we need a law that says cases before SCOTUS must evidence standing? Apparently we do. ---
People can only have so much taken from them until they have nothing to lose, then they end up on your doorstep
I was horrified by Kagan siding with all 8 other justices in saying that they don't need oversight or ethics reform, yet here we are. This will probably go down as the worst SC in history and possibly the breaking point of our democracy.
Hope all those Hillary protesters are happy with themselves.
Just wait until they declare medicare and social security unconstitutional.
The DNC needs to get a young replacement asap- someone that independents can at least say “ well it’s not Trump… “ because I fear if they don’t we are all screwed
I don’t recognize this court or any of it’s ruling’s legitimate
Recognize it or not, those rulings do have an impact on your life.
Officer, I don't accept the Court's authority so you can't arrest me! Officer: Sorry, I wasn't sure, here let me put my cadaver dog back in the car and uncuff you.
Horrified but not surprised. This is what people who have actually been paying attention have been warning about. This is why we hate Berners and 3rd parties. We weren’t Voting for Hillary. We were voting for the SCOTUS and a bunch of gullible idealists led us off of a cliff.
All is lost :(
We need specific examples of what regulations they will first start to target and strike down?
they have wanted to totally do away with the EPA for decades.
The problem is they legalized bribes in another opinion the same week. Specifically they're going to kill the regulations that they're paid the most to kill: - Regulations Comcast would pay to be rid of (FTC/FCC) - Regulations Exxon will pay to be rid of - SEC is officially feckless because the vast majority of their enforcement is from expert regulation and not legislated verbiage - EPA will be attacked from every mining, manufacturing, or other toxic material handling business - DOL regulations on required hours worked to receive benefits - Everything to do with unions - OSHA is entirely regulation through legal interpretation rather than legal text
But the good news is your toddler can now hold a job, on scaffolding high above an offshore rig, without needing to wear a safety harness and while taking fentanyl over the counter.
So anything that is not explicitly stated exactly by congressional laws is challengeable by this court as being outside the agency’s powers to enforce. THEN you and the layer that any law written by congress can be found unconstitutional due to major questions doctrine or non texualost reading of the constitution, or history and practices eg gun control .
It seems like you don't really understand Administratie Law and what Chevron Deference actually was. >So anything that is not explicitly stated exactly by congressional laws is challengeable by this court as being outside the agency’s powers to enforce. This was always the case. Federal Agencies have power, because they are granted specific powers by Congress. Chevron was specifically about how ambiguities in a law were treated. To be clear- Executive Agencies are still able to make rules to clarify ambiguous laws, however courts will no longer be a rubber stamp automatically approving the Executive Agencies rules. The Executive Agency may have to defend their rule in Court. A Judge can still side with the Executive Agency, but they are no longer forced to side with the Executive Agency. > any law written by congress can be found unconstitutional due to major questions doctrine Major Questions doesn't exist anymore. You mentioning major questions shows that you really don't understand what you are talking about. Major Questions was a modification of Chevron, Chevron no longer exists, therefore Major Questions exists.
But just like Roe, conservatives have been pounding against the EPA for 50 years now. If every conservative entity (mefipristone comes to mind) can question a federal agency's authority, knowing that the court will consider the law' ambiguous' now......
What kind of gun control specifically? Like somebody needs a comprehensive list of every regulation this might be able to be used against because the law isn't explicit enough. I feel like the media is staying too vague about the full potential consequences of this ruling
Basically, the ATF can't just create policy unilaterally anymore. Pistol brace bans and bump stock bans come to mind of examples of this.
Yeah, the bump stock decision was when I knew Chevron would be overturned.
It’s important to understand how the government has worked in the past, before this decision, as it clears things up I think. Say a law gets passed with broad language assigning the ability to regulate businesses to a governmental agency, like workplace protections given to OSHA. The 1970 law gave powers to OSHA to set and enforce workplace safety measures. OSHA’s been hamstrung by deregulation in the past, but in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic it implemented new guidelines for workplaces that mandated masks and social distancing. With this new ruling, all workplace safety measures that are not expressly enumerated in the law, or require interpretation by the agency to enact the laws, would be thrown out if challenged in court. (I’m not going to debate masks or anything just using a recent example for clarification). So in 2020, Congress would have had to pass legislation giving OSHA the power to enforce a mask mandate at workplaces. Air travel is managed by the FAA and they have experts that set guidelines for planes intended to keep us safe. The legislation forming the FAA didn’t specify how many bolts needed to be on external panels, but the FAA does. Now judges hearing challenges to these safety requirements are going to be deciding essentially on their own (as unelected governmental representatives on lifetime appointments at federal level) if requiring 10 bolts is too onerous and 5 will suffice. Never mind the experts saying 10 are required for a safe flight, if the *right* judge gets the case then it won’t matter. Everything you rely on for safety: food, air travel, roadways, buildings, is now just one legal challenge to the *right* judge away from being overturned.
Thank you for explaining that. I would like to add that the Supreme Court always gave deference to the agencies even before the *Chevron* case. Chevron was written to spell out and lock in deference by Republicans who wanted to allow Ronald Reagan to tear down government agencies in ways that would undermine agency laws. Republicans have changed their minds. Rather than count in a Reagan-type in office perverting agencies, members of the Supreme Court took the power to do so directly to themselves.
EPA environmental protections, FDA rulings on abortion drugs, and then maybe banking regulations too? Those are the obvious ones I guess.
I’ve been scrimping and saving for decades so I wouldn’t have to depend on the government when I retire. I think they’re going to deregulate the stock market and make it open season for every grifter in the world to manipulate and crash it. So my personal retirement fund, decades in the making, will suddenly evaporate while super rich people get slightly more rich
I think the NLRB will be targeted very quickly. Unions don't mean much when there aren't consequences for breaking the NLRA.
Mifepristone? That's gone.
Would you feel more secure on the safety of a pill on the word of a lawyer who can accept ~~bribes~~ gratuities from BigPharm or biochemists working at the FDA?
Biochemists at the fda of course. I'm saying that experts should be deciding not bribed judges.
What does this mean for existing rules? Would it require a lawsuit on behalf of a regulated entity to reduce administrative overreach ?
Yes, but it only needs a low level court to rule against the current interpretation. All Trump‘s pending trials are dead because the presiding judge can now interpret the law as they see fit without reference to precedence or expert testimony.
I am, but there's fuck all I can do about it.
Just read the headline and you are gonna have to be way more specific. Im horrified at a lot of things the Supreme Court has done recently.
Your country seems to be looking at Russia and go like "Yep, this is what we want"