There is a lot going on with SCOTUS this year. The death of Chevron diverts decision making from agencies which have an expertise in particular situations to the courts who lack the technical expertise. So now we have Thomas looking back in his crystal ball to see what they were doing in the 18th Century. Roberts believes the justices know more than the scientists and engineers know. This was done in Chevron which agency experts criticized. And they should be critical. The courts determination will undermine decisions by scientists and the very same agency experts. It is not just Chevron which also devastated South America with bad environmental practices, it is the court reversing Roe v Wade, EPA’s interstate air pollution, Moyle v. U.S.,
Topics:
Angry Bear considers the following as important: Journalism, law, politics
This could be interesting, too:
Bill Haskell writes Manufactured Evidence of Voter Fraud
Robert Skidelsky writes Milton Friedman – economic visionary or scourge of the world?
Robert Skidelsky writes Britain’s Illusory Fiscal Black Hole
Joel Eissenberg writes Whooping cough and the price of vaccine hesitancy
There is a lot going on with SCOTUS this year. The death of Chevron diverts decision making from agencies which have an expertise in particular situations to the courts who lack the technical expertise. So now we have Thomas looking back in his crystal ball to see what they were doing in the 18th Century.
Roberts believes the justices know more than the scientists and engineers know. This was done in Chevron which agency experts criticized. And they should be critical. The courts determination will undermine decisions by scientists and the very same agency experts.
It is not just Chevron which also devastated South America with bad environmental practices, it is the court reversing Roe v Wade, EPA’s interstate air pollution, Moyle v. U.S., Garland v. Cargill, Supreme Court ruling on immunity, Unhoused people sleeping outside, redraw congressional map to consider Black voters, and it goes onward.
Biden attacks Supreme Court immunity ruling as emboldening a lawless president. “The decision means there are now ‘virtually no limits on what the president can do.'”
Maybe this is the issue Democrats should be running on? Three Justices were by Trump. Roberts was appointed by Bush. And Thomas by Bush the Elder.
Should The Democrats Run On The Court?
by Digsby
Hullabaloo
Yes, yes, they should . . .
Digsby . . . I’m seeing a lot of discussion about whether or not the Democrats should use this Court’s extreme decisions as a primary issue in the fall since there’s not a lot we can do about it. I say yes. It’s all part of the far-right power grab that includes Trump and Project 2025. Of course they must run on it.
Josh Marshall wrote this today:
Obviously, wanting to focus attention on something doesn’t mean you’ll succeed. And for those ready to pounce: No, this is irrespective of who is at the top of the Democratic ticket. The obvious fact is that any day Democrats are talking about Joe Biden’s age is a wasted, lost day. What’s more relevant is that this is not and would not be changing the subject. It is the subject. It’s the actual subject that the campaign and election are about.
Donald Trump threatens the entire existence of the American republic. He is able to do this because the Supreme Court he created is assisting him in doing so. It is a corrupt Court. It overturned a central right for half of our population. It routinely mixes and matches rationales, jurisprudences, logics to arrive at the end point of transforming America into the justices’ extremist vision. We’ve heard that yesterday’s decision was a terrible decision, an extremist decision, that it changes the American experiment fundamentally. No disagreement with any of those points. Most importantly, in my mind, it’s a fake decision. Yes, it will now be controlling within the federal courts. But it doesn’t change the constitution any more than a foreign army occupying New England would make Massachusetts no longer part of the United States. That may seem like a jarring analogy. But it’s the only kind that allows us to properly view and react to this Supreme Court.
The rationale for the decision yesterday has literally no basis whatsoever in the U.S. Constitution. To capture this, comparing it to the earlier, unanimous appellate court decision in the contrary direction is revealing. The argument amounts to: separation of powers, yada. That’s it.
The advantage we can all take from the Dobbs decision is that it takes issues and actions that can seem technical, esoteric, removed from daily life and plants it squarely in the center of daily life. The Supreme Court is hellbent on taking away our freedoms and our liberty? Yes, really. Dobbs, in addition to being a huge deal itself, anchors the larger assault in everyone’s daily lived reality. That’s the way to see this and argue it to the public: the same out-of-control Court, which Donald Trump created and which ended abortion rights, now wants to change the constitution itself to help Donald Trump commit more crimes.
The election is about Donald Trump and the Supreme Court, the two forces working to overthrow the American republic. That’s the subject. It’s not Joe Biden. So both substantively and politically it makes all the sense in the world. The Court has done us all the favor of not always being as aware as it might be of the political and electoral dimensions of the justices’ bad acts. Yesterday’s ruling is a helpful if disastrous reminder of what the election is really about.
Back to Digsby . . . I could not agree more. At some point we are going to know if Biden is staying in or not and while the press will dog him relentlessly if he does, the race will reset to focus on Trump again. He will make sure of it. This is the message or at least the primary message. The court ‘s decision is the most far-reaching wrong turn the court has taken probably since Dred Scott. They’ve redefined the presidency as a time-limited (maybe…) dictatorship. The stakes in this campaign were always high. Now they’re truly existential.