SCOTUS Watch--Chevron Deference Doctrine overturned; Administrative State takes a HUGE hit.

Mr. Deez said:
They didn't reach the merits in that case. They dismissed it for lack of standing. I think they were right to dismiss the state defendants. Their standing argument was weak. The individuals were a mixed bag, but at least one of them (Jill Hines) had standing, and it only takes one to reach the merits. I'm really disappointed in Kavanaugh and Barrett. I'm even a little surprised at Roberts, who to his credit, did have the balls to do the right thing on the Chevron deference case, which in a lot of ways was a politically tougher case.

There is some silver lining. A significant reason for the dismissal was that they were seeking injunctive relief, which has some twists and turns in it's standing requirements. If someone brings a case for compensatory relief, it wouldn't shock me if Barrett and Kavanaugh (and maybe Roberts, who wouldn't be essential) flip. Obviously we know the leftist wing will rule with the government. I can't call them "liberal" on this case, because their position on this is wildly authoritarian and illiberal.
Click to expand...

Laws are complicated.
 
Chop said:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. U.S. Const. art. I, §§ 1, 8.
Click to expand...
Hey wait a minute. Looks like our Founding Fathers neglected to add in the EPA, DOE, SSA, DOL, FHA, HOA, IRS and more. What could they have been thinking?
 
Monahorns said:
Laws are complicated.
Click to expand...

They certainly can be. Most people (myself included) read Article III of the Constitution the first time and just glossed over the language that says judicial power applies to "cases" or "controversies." Well, there's a ton of caselaw describing what is meant and what isn't meant by those terms, and they determine if a case is "justiciable" and therefore whether a federal court even has the power or jurisidiction to intervene. And even justiciability is three different areas all of which are fought over all the time - standing (has to do with whether the plaintiff has been injured, whether the defendant's wrongful conduct caused the injury, and whether a favourable court ruling would redress the injury), ripeness (has to do with whether or not the case rests on future events that may or may not occur), and mootness (whether or not court action would have a meaningful effect on the dispute).

It seems ridiculous, and sometimes it is. However, I kinda like the fact that we mull over the words of the Constitution to make sure we're giving each word effect. My problem with the case at hand is that I think they did the opposite (at least with respect to Jill Hines). They interpreted the "case or controversy" requirement into irrelevance.
 
Mr. Deez said:
They certainly can be. Most people (myself included) read Article III of the Constitution the first time and just glossed over the language that says judicial power applies to "cases" or "controversies." Well, there's a ton of caselaw describing what is meant and what isn't meant by those terms, and they determine if a case is "justiciable" and therefore whether a federal court even has the power or jurisidiction to intervene. And even justiciability is three different areas all of which are fought over all the time - standing (has to do with whether the plaintiff has been injured, whether the defendant's wrongful conduct caused the injury, and whether a favourable court ruling would redress the injury), ripeness (has to do with whether or not the case rests on future events that may or may not occur), and mootness (whether or not court action would have a meaningful effect on the dispute).

It seems ridiculous, and sometimes it is. However, I kinda like the fact that we mull over the words of the Constitution to make sure we're giving each word effect. My problem with the case at hand is that I think they did the opposite (at least with respect to Jill Hines). They interpreted the "case or controversy" requirement into irrelevance.
Click to expand...

I've heard that constitutional law or what you learn about the constitution in law school many times obfuscates what the constitution actually says and in some instances contradicts the actual words of the constitution. I have no frame of reference to know if they are right or wrong. Just other lawyers (and historians) on podcasts talking about things.
 
Monahorns said:
I've heard that constitutional law or what you learn about the constitution in law school many times obfuscates what the constitution actually says and in some instances contradicts the actual words of the constitution. I have no frame of reference to know if they are right or wrong. Just other lawyers (and historians) on podcasts talking about things.
Click to expand...
Read the online papers, blogs, and debates coming out of the Federalist Society. Their seminar papers are remarkably even-handed with a multitude of viewpoints presented. The society itself is very much originalist and pro-actual written language of the Constitution.
 
Monahorns said:
I've heard that constitutional law or what you learn about the constitution in law school many times obfuscates what the constitution actually says and in some instances contradicts the actual words of the constitution. I have no frame of reference to know if they are right or wrong. Just other lawyers (and historians) on podcasts talking about things.
Click to expand...

It isn't so much that we were taught to obfuscate what the Cosntitution says as much as that we were sometimes taught court opinions that obfuscated what it says (as well as the law in general). If you have reasonably honest professors, they'll admit it. But they have to teach those cases, because they're controlling law. You can't practice without knowing them.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It isn't so much that we were taught to obfuscate what the Cosntitution says as much as that we were sometimes taught court opinions that obfuscated what it says (as well as the law in general). If you have reasonably honest professors, they'll admit it. But they have to teach those cases, because they're controlling law. You can't practice without knowing them.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That is what I was talking about, but didn't have the specific vocabulary for it.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It isn't so much that we were taught to obfuscate what the Cosntitution says as much as that we were sometimes taught court opinions that obfuscated what it says (as well as the law in general). If you have reasonably honest professors, they'll admit it. But they have to teach those cases, because they're controlling law. You can't practice without knowing them.
Click to expand...
Prime Example - Griswold v. Conn.

Judge-created "zones of privacy" rights somehow emanate from the "penumbra" right of association protected by the Constitution. Or some such bs with cute new judge-created buzzwords... Therefore, there is a Constitutional right to privacy. (foundation of Roe v Wade)

What a bunch of made-up baloney. That was never in the Constitution, and never agreed to by the States. Even liberal scholars (the smart and honest ones--of which there are many) admitted long ago that Roe was on very shaky ground.
 
mchammer said:
DEI has now backfired and causing damage to the leftists.

Click to expand...

This is rich!

Tribe thinks he should have been put on the SCOTUS at some point, as does Chemerinsky. While he may be correct that Sotomayor lacks the grey matter of most SCOTUS justices over the years, he comes across as petty, bitter, and envious. Remember, this guy is the douche who's main concern after Chevron deference was overthrown was what it would do to the legal scholars who specialized in studying the administrative state...

Still, this is pretty funny.

:lmao:
 
https://www.salon.com/2024/07/03/su...er-be-necessary-after-scotus-immunity-ruling/

According to Salon, Trump's immunity might mean no sentencing--even in his state court criminal case. He may have "beat the rap" entirely based on the SCOTUS total immunity ruling.

"In wake of the Supreme Court's ruling that presidents are granted total immunity for "official acts," a path has opened for Donald Trump to avoid sentencing for his conviction on falsifying business records to hide an affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels. According to The New Republic, Juan Merchan, the judge who presided over the hush-money trial that landed Trump with 34 felony convictions, is no longer certain that sentencing, which was delayed to September, will ever happen.

“The Court’s decision will be rendered off calendar on September 6, 2024, and the matter is adjourned to September 18, 2024 at 10:00 AM for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary, or other proceedings,” New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan wrote in a letter Tuesday. The sentencing was supposed to take place on July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention."

donald-trump-rare-smile-court-pecker.jpg
 
Last edited:
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/03/joe-biden-campaign-election-ad-supreme-court-immunity-trump

Biden launching 7-figure ad buy blasting SCOTUS immunity ruling

Somebody's pissed.

  • "Nearly 250 years ago, America was founded in defiance of a king under the belief that no one is above the law, not even the president — until now," the new ad, airing the day before July 4, begins.
  • Trump has "already led an insurrection and threatened to be a dictator on day one," the narrator continues.
1719969223270.jpg
 
Chop said:
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/03/joe-biden-campaign-election-ad-supreme-court-immunity-trump

Biden launching 7-figure ad buy blasting SCOTUS immunity ruling

Somebody's pissed.

  • "Nearly 250 years ago, America was founded in defiance of a king under the belief that no one is above the law, not even the president — until now," the new ad, airing the day before July 4, begins.
  • Trump has "already led an insurrection and threatened to be a dictator on day one," the narrator continues.
1719969223270.jpg
Click to expand...
And Joe's hundreds of fiat executive orders signed in his first couple of days in office weren't dictatorial?
 
There is a very clear disinformation campaign to make the Court's ruling wildly more expansive than it actually was. It started with Sotomayor totally shitting the bed and setting herself on fire in her dissent, and the media and Democratic officials have basically followed her lead.

I think it serves a few purposes. First, obviously, it gives them a chance to bash the Supreme Court, and they'll take that chance every time they can.

Second, it gives them an excuse to stop the prosecutions, which tells me they acknowledge that they were more of a liability than an asset. The Court's opinion may have some impact on some of the DC case, but it has zero impact on the hush money case. There is no reason not to do the sentencing as planned except for one thing - they want to end the case.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
And Joe's hundreds of fiat executive orders signed in his first couple of days in office weren't dictatorial?
Click to expand...
The demz are forgetting that it protects them also.
However it does not protect SloJoe on his mishandling of top secret documents (no matter how good the Corvette protected them) because he was VP and never should have been allowed to remove them from the SKIFF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top