U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

ooh! Do show!

Oh, no, I meant: you’re right.

They are telegraphing their intentions this far out and yet we can all rest assured that the Dems will not do one fucking thing to stop it. Time to get the fuck out of the country.

It feels almost inevitable that the deciding vote in the House on overturning the popular vote in '24 will come from a far-right firebrand elected in '22 thanks to Democratic support in the primary.

I have great-grandparents who came over on the boat from Finland, maybe it's time to start learning the language and exploring my options.

will Geir take us in

Not that there is any realistic plan for getting the fuck out of Dodge, I'm just completely out of hope after the last two weeks. We've got a rogue SCOTUS completely crippling our democracy for the foreseeable future, the Dems are too busy fundraising to spend on far-right primary candidates to do a fucking thing to stop it and voting rights are being completely gutted. Hard to imagine how anything turns around at this point.

My only option for grandparent-citizenship in Europe is fucking Poland (sorry Poles).

"The left needs to stand down so we can stop fascism!"
*funds fascism*

Back in 2017, I predicted, only partly tongue in cheek, that Trumps' Court would not rest until it had reversed those pesky child labor laws. I really don't think it's out of the question.

I have great-grandparents who came over on the boat from Finland, maybe it's time to start learning the language and exploring my options.

Finnish isn't an actual language; it's something they made up to disorient and terrify the Russians during the war, and then it just kind of stuck.

maybe we'll get lucky and some of these justices will live long enough to perish in one of the future natural disasters they directly caused with their epa decision

or Kavanaugh can get eaten by something

My grandmother spoke it before she spoke English; her parents spoke little English and never learned much in their small community in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. We hosted a Finnish exchange student about a dozen years ago. I saw an email he wrote to his parents--it looked like long strings of random vowels and consonants with the occasional umlaut thrown in.

Reminds me of a story my grandfather used to tell about the rural Illinois town he grew up in; a Czech guy moved to town and assumed he was learning English from his neighbors, but he was actually learning Swedish.

I feel like this EPA decision could be catastrophic

I feel like this EPA decision could be catastrophic

Honestly, I don't. Big Industry has figured out that there's money to be made in doing things in a cleaner and more efficient manner. They'll make changes on their own (have already been doing so for years) and Republicans (and Joe Manchin) will scrape their knuckles on the ground and mutter "But we got the judges t'say y' didn't hafta!"

Yeah I mean a decade ago this would’ve been really frightening but the entire energy sector does seem to be making a lot of strides right now

I don’t see some numbered industrial chemical company (for example) really caring what people on Instagram think, when they can save a few bucks by dumping their waste directly into the nearest river with zero oversight. It’s only going to take a small number of businesses to totally fuck shit up.

The year is 2024. SCOTUS just voted 5-4 to allow hunting homeless people for sport, with Roberts joining the minority, arguing that only homeless not actively seeking work should be hunted

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) June 30, 2022

xp it is catastrophic. rolling back the power of federal agencies -- that is, the ones that serve interests other than corporate profits -- is going to be a major goal of this right wing court.

Regarding the EPA decision, the major questions doctrine seems like a legitimate question to ask, following from the separation of powers. Roberts may be guilty of using incrementalism as a magic escape hatch, but I sometimes wonder if he is conscious of the reception of expert opinion. Is he pragmatic, institutionally grandiose, aware of anti-intellectualism in the 21st C., ... ?

But doesn't the investment in new sectors delay benefits, and would decision makers expect to be around to reap the benefits and to profit personally?

Government subsidies could provide the bridge to reduce the cost (and the delayed gratification) of the investment, so it is still plausible that Big Business could switch if anyone is still in touch with reality.

Have you read Kagan's dissent? It makes it clear how aggressive and results-oriented the application of this supposed doctrine is in this case. In the section of the law in question, Congress gave the agency the power to make these calls. The Court is, by fiat, deciding "ehhh.... no it didn't."

I should read the dissent because the parts that were quoted in the NYT were memorable. Thanks.

I agree that it seems to have been a misapplication (if the doctrine itself is valid and worth retaining now and in the future, based on the little that I know of legal theory) and that the most likely interpretation is that Roberts made his decision based on outcome. (I still wonder about his motives and his rationale.)

His motives and his rationale are continuing to fatten the wallets of the Koch brothers and their brethren.

Does this work or not anymore if ever -- id : legislative :: ego : executive :: super-ego : judicial ?

Like I know you’re trying to be reasonable but the myth that Roberts is the reasonable one is dangerous. Every single one of the conservatives on the court has no regard for human lives except those of the white, rich, donor class that they serve.

Roberts may not be the case to consider, but I think there has to be a premise of common humanity or everything falls apart.

Roberts looks reasonable b/c the three Trump nominees pushed the Court further right and finally gave Alito and Thomas working majorities.

xp to youn

Roberts may not be the case to consider, but I think there has to be a premise of common humanity or everything falls apart.

I wouldn't worry about the details of the legal basis of these decisions. The result is all that matters to them and they won't hesitate to contradict that basis if they need to for a future result.

I think there has to be a premise of common humanity or everything falls apart.

Oh good, we've got two treeships now.

🖕

You’re such a miserable person it’s incredible to me you even have the energy to post.

Good morning!

I’ve never been a roberts defender or a republican equivocator. I consider this court to be rogue and murderous.

I think I got off on a tangent with Roberts. Regarding the EPA decision, I had hoped to learn more about your thoughts on expert opinion and independent federal agencies and more about the past usage of the major questions doctrine, which seems to have come about as a reaction to the Chevron doctrine. (That these precedents have come about so recently and the question under dispute seem to point to society in which expertise and decision making are increasingly specialized and direct participation and engagement unlikely.)

and direct participation and engagement unlikely

This is probably irrelevant because these are probably not the kinds of decisions everyone needs to make and where it's better to trust an expert, but the major questions doctrine is contesting this based on a mistrust of expert opinion?

this is the exact area where i think Kagan's dissent could clarify things for you. the majority opinion is in effect a major expansion of what counts as a "major question." previously this was described as requiring that the agency went way outside its normal area of operations, and/or would the regulation amount to some enormous change to the structure of the economy --- for example the FDA outlawing cigarettes as a poisonous drug, which (whatever the merits of the idea) is clearly not what Congress empowered the FDA to do, and would also shutter an industry at one blow.

the Clean Power plan doesn't rise to either of these - Congress clearly empowered the EPA to regulate power plant emissions, and the plan's impact would not be remotely earthshaking. as Kagan points out, the plan was in fact blocked by the Trump administration and then the power industry exceeded its goals anyway. so now "major questions" means "regulates something i wish they wouldn't."

Kagan is good on the administrative state and is the libs' best explainer, yeah.

What is even wilder about this case is that it was not an actual case or controversy. The Court intentionally took a matter that was not active to further its agenda of dismantling the regulatory state.

Those Koch dollars are bearing rich fruit.

some are suggesting that the deeper purpose, since the CPP was already kaputt, was to establish that if a regulatory agency, EPA or otherise, drifts into regulating things that 6 conservative justices don't like, they can now declare that the agency is addressing a "big question" (defined as "i know it when my racist piece of shit ass sees it"), they can unilaterally shut it down

that could be true, although I wonder why they wouldn't just do that through a case actually challenging something they want to shut down, i.e. why do that through a challenge to something not active when they could just do it through a challenge to something active? I guess we will find out soon enough anyway.

That seems to be what the decision means. The epa is empowered by congress to protect the environment and regulating emissions is part of that. Their operation is overseen by the executive. The rationale of the majority opinion here is laughable.

I think it's a flex on the part of the Court. Standing is a basic requirement of federal court jurisdiction. They're expanding the rules to suit their agenda.

Plus, as I said, this is Koch money at work. This question is of paramount importance to the fossil fuel industry.

Laughable and yet We. Would. CRY. xp

that could be true, although I wonder why they wouldn't just do that through a case actually challenging something they want to shut down, i.e. why do that through a challenge to something not active when they could just do it through a challenge to something active? I guess we will find out soon enough anyway.

The majority sees that the President and the slim majority in the Senate aren’t passing anything now, and they see that lower courts have held up regs , so they chose to do it this way, because they don’t want to wait. They arrogantly believe they know what’s allowed so why not to them do it this way.