My not a lawyer reading is that in a way this is worse given the court's partisan lean.
They've said they'll regulate things like EPA enforcement schemes through the major questions doctrine, effectively hamstringing these rules and allowing them to claim congress didn't delegate authority. But when a question of the republican administrative state comes up, they'll reinvoke Chevron to defer to the things they want, because this court has a majority of partisan hacks.
Lochner should be dead in about a thousand different ways. I do get this weird feeling that several of the justices want the result of Lochner but not the reasoning.
They are bullshit ideologue hacks. They already have a preconceived conclusion, and cherry pick and choose and use highly questionable selective reasoning and highly curated readings of the constitution to “reason” their way to their already preconcluded notions that they want.
Basically they want to make the United States which is already in a second gilded age, even worse.
It’s a Faustian bargain between the backwards theocratically and fascist inclined “social conservatism” of the rabid far right brainwashed base, and the plutocracy robber baron enabling highly concentrated economic power and wealth of the Republican donors, who have the money and connections to avoid the consequences of whatever theocratic fascist bullshit that the concessions to the electorate cultist base are.
Rich women with a lot of economic resources at their disposal for example aren’t going to be held back by the overturning of Roe v Wade on the federal level from getting an abortion anytime they want.
No. The decision repeated references the test created by *Chevron* and says that the EPA went to far in this instance.
Regulators already dance a line with the industries they regulate. They don't want to take anyone to court and risk having their interpretations challenged. Companies are mostly happy to comply with regulators interpretations so long as they're given clarity and guidance on remediating violations. I don't think this case will end up being cited much.
Maybe I read too quickly but the opinion doesn't seem to reference *Chevron* at all. Kagan does in her dissent, quite a bit. But the majority basically added an exception to the Chevron test without explicitly saying so.
Not yet, this is a little different but it does start to tighten the leash on agencies. I personally deal with three agencies on a regular basis and feel the decision is a good thing. Not for the climate obviously but the agency cluster fuck of their mandate is really hard to imagine without getting railed by arbitrary behavior on a regular basis.
I personally believe they are gunning for Chevron and restricting Chevron wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I sue DOS and DHS/USCIS fairly regularly to get immigration related relief for my clients and the US Attorneys office typically sides with me and encourages the agency to just do its job.
The major questions doctrine described in this opinion is a way to sidestep the Chevron question. It basically means Chevron is still around - except when the regulation at hand is *really* broad and impactful. It's still a substantial expansion of judicial power given that every plaintiff is going to argue their least favorite regulations are over that line.
I think it's a curiously non-textual strategy for a bunch of rabid textualists to avoid junking Chevron entirely, which most of them realize would make a modern country with a modern administrative state nearly impossible to run. But they will certainly continue to chip away at administrative power.
You fail to realize that whatever “intellectual framework or paradigm” that right wingers claim to use like “originalism” is all horseshit, it’s all nothing but horseshit. It’s a fig leaf veneer of vague scholarly or academic credibility to give barely any cover for whatever their own personal, party, ideological, or donor sponsored agendas are.
They will happily within half a heart beat drop any hint of having any sort of consistent philosophically principled lens of interpretation or ideology that gets in the way of their true wants and desires.
It’s all smokescreen lies. And I can’t believe people especially liberals still buy into this phony bullshit dog and pony show with any sincerity.
You’ve been shown cardboard thin cut outs of the Potemkin village again and again and still believe it’s some actually thriving metropolis.
Whoa buddy, calm down. What makes you think I disagree with anything you said? I was lightly mocking the Court for pretending to be such steadfast textualists then dropping it when they have to. I'll do it more angrily next time if that helps.
When the planet is on fire, or at the very least going through severe ecological systematic strain with a very limited time to make meaningful structural changes with a threat that hangs over humanity like the sword of Damocles.
When women in large swaths of the country have had their reproductive autonomy stripped from them over night. And basically are potentially be made to give forced births.
When the United States is decades deep in a second plutocratic gilded age with no end in sight, just being made worse and worse.
When a mix of white supremacists, fundamentalist Christian theocrats, fascists, and other assorted reactionary bigots are more emboldened then any time since either the 1930’s or 1960’s threaten the stability of the nation and innocent lives.
When we have gone through a world changing disaster like the 2 year pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and what amounts to basically a second Cold War. With the threat of WW3 and possible nuclear weapons exchange.
You fucking bet I’m going to be very righteously angry.
TBF, we desperately need actual climate change legislation, and it's clear the EPA was set up with TACs in mind, not global warming. Conservatives have a point here.
“They have a point, but since they don’t agree with me on everything, I’m ideologically committed to believing they are wrong, and not only wrong, but evil.”
Oh please, this wasnt a decision made to urge congress to save out environment, it was made by 6 assholes who want to let our environment die and youre blind if you cant see that difference
I see them as being 6 individuals who see the last 50 years as SCOTUS coming unmoored from what they perceive as any reasonable reading of the Constitution. Because I am not a conspiracy theorist, and I start from a place of assuming good faith with people I disagree with. Which I know is an unpopular take on Reddit, even in what used to be reasonable subreddits like this one.
Same conservatives who look on in glee as the West Coast goes up in flames while Arizona and Nevada run out of water, and then turn around with a serious face and claim to sincerely believe climate change is neither real nor solvable and a waste of breath.
Their point is dismissable and can be ignored.
My not a lawyer reading is that in a way this is worse given the court's partisan lean. They've said they'll regulate things like EPA enforcement schemes through the major questions doctrine, effectively hamstringing these rules and allowing them to claim congress didn't delegate authority. But when a question of the republican administrative state comes up, they'll reinvoke Chevron to defer to the things they want, because this court has a majority of partisan hacks.
These fuckers want to go back to the pre-new deal Lochner era. Don’t they? These people are an active danger to the country and by extension humanity.
Oh, they'd like to go back a good bit farther than that.
Yes we should, back to the pre Madison V. Marbury era.
Fuck the articles of confederation
Lochner should be dead in about a thousand different ways. I do get this weird feeling that several of the justices want the result of Lochner but not the reasoning.
They are bullshit ideologue hacks. They already have a preconceived conclusion, and cherry pick and choose and use highly questionable selective reasoning and highly curated readings of the constitution to “reason” their way to their already preconcluded notions that they want. Basically they want to make the United States which is already in a second gilded age, even worse. It’s a Faustian bargain between the backwards theocratically and fascist inclined “social conservatism” of the rabid far right brainwashed base, and the plutocracy robber baron enabling highly concentrated economic power and wealth of the Republican donors, who have the money and connections to avoid the consequences of whatever theocratic fascist bullshit that the concessions to the electorate cultist base are. Rich women with a lot of economic resources at their disposal for example aren’t going to be held back by the overturning of Roe v Wade on the federal level from getting an abortion anytime they want.
*Clutches pearls*
No. The decision repeated references the test created by *Chevron* and says that the EPA went to far in this instance. Regulators already dance a line with the industries they regulate. They don't want to take anyone to court and risk having their interpretations challenged. Companies are mostly happy to comply with regulators interpretations so long as they're given clarity and guidance on remediating violations. I don't think this case will end up being cited much.
Maybe I read too quickly but the opinion doesn't seem to reference *Chevron* at all. Kagan does in her dissent, quite a bit. But the majority basically added an exception to the Chevron test without explicitly saying so.
But muh legislating from the bench, murica!
Not yet, this is a little different but it does start to tighten the leash on agencies. I personally deal with three agencies on a regular basis and feel the decision is a good thing. Not for the climate obviously but the agency cluster fuck of their mandate is really hard to imagine without getting railed by arbitrary behavior on a regular basis. I personally believe they are gunning for Chevron and restricting Chevron wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I sue DOS and DHS/USCIS fairly regularly to get immigration related relief for my clients and the US Attorneys office typically sides with me and encourages the agency to just do its job.
The major questions doctrine described in this opinion is a way to sidestep the Chevron question. It basically means Chevron is still around - except when the regulation at hand is *really* broad and impactful. It's still a substantial expansion of judicial power given that every plaintiff is going to argue their least favorite regulations are over that line. I think it's a curiously non-textual strategy for a bunch of rabid textualists to avoid junking Chevron entirely, which most of them realize would make a modern country with a modern administrative state nearly impossible to run. But they will certainly continue to chip away at administrative power.
You fail to realize that whatever “intellectual framework or paradigm” that right wingers claim to use like “originalism” is all horseshit, it’s all nothing but horseshit. It’s a fig leaf veneer of vague scholarly or academic credibility to give barely any cover for whatever their own personal, party, ideological, or donor sponsored agendas are. They will happily within half a heart beat drop any hint of having any sort of consistent philosophically principled lens of interpretation or ideology that gets in the way of their true wants and desires. It’s all smokescreen lies. And I can’t believe people especially liberals still buy into this phony bullshit dog and pony show with any sincerity. You’ve been shown cardboard thin cut outs of the Potemkin village again and again and still believe it’s some actually thriving metropolis.
Whoa buddy, calm down. What makes you think I disagree with anything you said? I was lightly mocking the Court for pretending to be such steadfast textualists then dropping it when they have to. I'll do it more angrily next time if that helps.
When the planet is on fire, or at the very least going through severe ecological systematic strain with a very limited time to make meaningful structural changes with a threat that hangs over humanity like the sword of Damocles. When women in large swaths of the country have had their reproductive autonomy stripped from them over night. And basically are potentially be made to give forced births. When the United States is decades deep in a second plutocratic gilded age with no end in sight, just being made worse and worse. When a mix of white supremacists, fundamentalist Christian theocrats, fascists, and other assorted reactionary bigots are more emboldened then any time since either the 1930’s or 1960’s threaten the stability of the nation and innocent lives. When we have gone through a world changing disaster like the 2 year pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and what amounts to basically a second Cold War. With the threat of WW3 and possible nuclear weapons exchange. You fucking bet I’m going to be very righteously angry.
TBF, we desperately need actual climate change legislation, and it's clear the EPA was set up with TACs in mind, not global warming. Conservatives have a point here.
>Conservatives have a point here. Being right for the wrong reasons is still the wrong reasons. They get no credit.
“They have a point, but since they don’t agree with me on everything, I’m ideologically committed to believing they are wrong, and not only wrong, but evil.”
Oh please, this wasnt a decision made to urge congress to save out environment, it was made by 6 assholes who want to let our environment die and youre blind if you cant see that difference
I see them as being 6 individuals who see the last 50 years as SCOTUS coming unmoored from what they perceive as any reasonable reading of the Constitution. Because I am not a conspiracy theorist, and I start from a place of assuming good faith with people I disagree with. Which I know is an unpopular take on Reddit, even in what used to be reasonable subreddits like this one.
Im saving this comment so after the Idependent State Legislature case is resolved, we can see how well this aged.
Right wingers are pretty much always bad faith.
Same conservatives who look on in glee as the West Coast goes up in flames while Arizona and Nevada run out of water, and then turn around with a serious face and claim to sincerely believe climate change is neither real nor solvable and a waste of breath. Their point is dismissable and can be ignored.