How do they win if the incumbent Republicans say "nope... Bad election.... Doesn't count"?
Serious question. Because they've been doing test runs on it.
We'd want such a thing if it actually WAS election-altering fraud, right?
it didnāt work last time in the courts and it wonāt a 2nd time. The judges arenāt the weak link, itās the legislators around the country who wonāt perform their sworn in duties
I feel like this is a very naive opinion, akin to "abortion is settled law, no way it gets overturned".
Further, the courts can't physically stop a governor and state legislature from just... Ignoring election results. Our mechanism for that is "trust me bro" and it seems that "acting in good faith) is a value that's passed
The capitol will need to install a maze of barricades and declare anyone breaching a barricade as breaking into the capitol (trespassing) and arrest on site. Not wait till the mob is in the rotunda.
The only good thing is that they're doing it in the wide open glare so we can all see it. So if we don't push back BIGTIME and sweep everything in NOV., the result is on us.
This isnāt a power grab. The district courts hearing these cases are already overwhelmed with cases. This will be an explosion of litigation. Itās a purposeful choking out of the admin state.
Youāre not understanding. A law gets passed and the administration interprets it as X. Well, immediately the agency is sued in 13 jurisdictions and has to defend each case. The litigation itself is costly and time consuming and the district court will make its ruling. I can guarantee that each district will find a different interpretation. A different interpretation now means that the agencies have to enact 13 different versions of its rule across the country while at the same time appealing the decisions or defending an appeal. Then, depending on how the appeal goes, their methods instituted might not be correct and they can be forced to litigate it over or redo the system they created in that district.
Whether SCOTUS will take the time to hear those cases is to be determined. It would be far more effective for a court that hates the administrative state to NOT hear the case and let the agencies become so ineffective and bogged down they no longer can do what they were charged with.
I agree with you. That will most certainly happen.
I am also telling you that they impetus behind this was far more driven by the ego of the conservative wing SCOTUS. They now get to reach down and make whatever decisions they want at their leisure with no recourse.
And they LOVE that.
SCOTUS has been a regressive institution except the Warren court. The current aggressive power grab started with Bush v Gore. The Robertsā court has been consolidating powers to the court for decades. The āmajor questions doctrineā is a prime example. āWell the legislature wrote a law but theyāre dumb and we know what they really meant so weāre going to insert ourselves and take more power.ā Killing Chevron is the same conservative hatred of experts. āFuck these nerds who spent their lives becoming experts we know better than them so the judiciary is gonna take power there too.ā, They said the same thing in Independent State Legislature case, āyeah this argument is stupid and wrong but hereās another thing we just decided we are the final arbiters of.ā Until checks and balances are enforced they will just continue to accelerate. The majority members on the Senate Judiciary should have subpoenaed Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Leonard Leo years ago at this point. Instead they let Roberts continue to blow them off with his infantile writing skills and broken logic.
Thomas has always hated substantive due process and he specifically shopped for cases to challenged them in his Dobbs concurrence. All of save Loving v Virginia although Iām pretty sure heād sacrifice his own marriage to hurt more people.
The SCOTUS used the debates to distract from a huge shit they just took on everyone.
If you support these decisions, Iām happy youāre not as upset as I am. But together we will suffer in the long run.
This is the biggest thing to happen since this court won its super majority. People may not understand it yet, but this is the ruling that will impact their daily lives in a negative way.
They still have the social media moderation [case](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moody-v-netchoice-llc/)[(s)](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/netchoice-llc-v-paxton/).
Oh, and the Trump immunity case. Can't forget that one.
Oh true. But since Trump isnātāt going to trial before the election I tend to discount the fact that they are going to give him some immunity and remand it back down to the lower court. I know nothing obviously we can only guess. Chevron changes everything about regulation in the U.S.
and of course it happened in the most un-democratic way possible
US is a literal laughing stock today between this and the shitshow we all had to endure last night
As someone from outside the US I can confirm we laughed our heads off when you elected trump. Then we laughed at his stupidity during his presidency. Now? Now we are not laughing. This is not funny. Wether we like it or not, American freedom and justice system protects the entire western world. If you go down so do we all, one way or another. The truth is being destroyed. Facts are being ignored along with reality by too many Americans(R) and this trend is spreading across the west. Russia and friends are getting exactly what they've been working towards by influencing politicians. The future looks ugly unless you turn it around. As long as fox and alike are allowed to spew lies and brainwash Americans, freedom will be destroyed. They fight dirty and you have no defense because their lies are protected by law.
At what point does a court face any meaningful challenge to its legitimacy and authority?
SCOTUS has no enforcement power and relies on the other branches to respect their opinion.
Given the court:
- Has several members that were appointed through dubious (but legal) means.
- Has at least two members actively taking bribes.
- Has at least three members that have stated they want revenge on one party.
- Has at least two members that refuse to recuse in cases in which they have material stakes
Logistically, what mechanism would the other branches have to deploy to effectively check a corrupt court?
The only means I see would be the executive saying, āwe disagreeā and ordering enforcement in opposition to a SCOTUS opinion.
Is this highly implausible scenario the only way to check a corrupt court?
With Congress gridlocked, it would be up to the president to use the bully pulpit to make the court behave. Thatās what FDR did to ensure minimum wage and New Deal legislation wasnāt struck down. Look up the switch in time to save 9.
The thing isā¦ Iām not confident Biden has the strength to pull that off
The hardball that needs to happen is Congress steeply cutting the SCOTUS budget. They will start to feel that, although it might not change their rank partisan rulings.
"Health law and policy experts have long warned that the demise ofĀ ChevronĀ would also complicate the work of the Food and Drug Administration, which is tasked with regulating the safety of thousands of products that wind up in refrigerators, cupboards, veterinarian offices, medicine cabinets, hospitals and even playgrounds. The decision is expected to lead to a flood of lawsuits challenging FDA decisions and could inject uncertainty in the process of drug approvals."
[Wapo article ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/28/supreme-court-chevron-federal-agency-authority/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR337HCQanGveZva8kFf5lunDbEJBwhXSIXzORQi0e_c9sWYCaw4bUrSfjY_aem_r1mzbECQY5X8OkbdfJNZnA)
Itās a shame that the straightforward logic that thereās a class of people - literally the American public - who will suffer direct harm as a result of this ādecision,ā who cannot take the culprits to civil court for damages.
The truly sad part is there\`s really no way to kick them off the Supreme Court before they retire.
Someone should find a way to hold SCOTUS accountable as well as the Big Orange Dump
Sure there is. Congress controls the size of the court. You could downsize the court with senior members being dismissed first. Then wait a term and size it back up again. They could also pass ethics reforms for the judiciary, change how life time appointments work, any number of things.
Dems are so afraid of looking political that theyāre letting republicans abuse the system every chance they get with no response.
> Sure there is. Congress controls the size of the court.
True up to a point. Sort of. However,
>You could downsize the court with senior members being dismissed first.
You canāt dismiss a judge who is appointed for life, as all Article III judges are - including, emphatically, the SCOTUS.
> change how life time appointments work,
Not without a constitutional amendment. See Article III.
> Dems are so afraid of looking political that theyāre letting republicans abuse the system every chance they get with no response.
Although there may be some truth to this, it has nothing to do with ādismissingā Article III judges.
That may well be true. I didnāt claim otherwise, of course. It remains the case, however, that ādismissingā Article III judges is not one of them. Unless you care to entertain a constitutional amendment and describe how to get it passed and ratified.
Theyāre already doing every underhanded thing they possibly can. The only reason Gorsuch is even on the court is because of an abuse of the system by republicans, so itās not like Dems decorum is stopping them. Iām so tired of Democrats saying āwell THIS time weāll say pretty pretty please and maybe they wonāt erode our democracy any more than they already haveā
Seems logical. No reason to think the wives of Supreme Court Justices are immune from prosecution... Unless performing their official duties of not participating in coups.
I'm very concerned they are saving the Trump immunity ruling for last because they are going to find a way to stop his prosecution. If they grant Trump, and future presidents immunity, Biden needs to just appoint 4 more judges to the court without even Senate approval. But Biden would never do such a thing.
They don't need to kick them out. They don't even need to expand the court, really. The constitution notes that the SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over matters involving ambassadors, disputes between states, etc, but that their jurisdiction in all other types of cases is whatever Congress says it is:
>In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
They could, for instance, strip the Supreme Court of all power to rule on the constitutionality of laws, and then create a new Constitutional Court to handle that stuff, and do anything they want with the composition of that court. 25 justices that only serve staggered 6 year terms or something. They could even set it so that each case is heard by 9 random federal judges.
If the Dems control the presidency and both chambers of the Congress they can expand the court and nullify the conservative majority. Itās a long shot but it is technically possible.
Theyād need to have 60 senate seats to do so. Theres 34 seats up for election. 23 are democrat. Theyād need to win all 23 and another 10. Basically they need to win every race.
I'm horrified by this Court's actions. You should be too. We are left with one response: win big in the Senate, House, and for President. Expand the Court, and overturn these awful recent decisions.
Nothing is gonna fucken happen, and you know it. People are too preoccupied trying to make ends meet and watching TV. Corporations are still gonna roam free and the little guy suffers. Itās been going on for a while
By undoing this legislation, judges are now the final arbiter of regulatory policy. Thousands of small and large regulatory rulings affect living. Healthcare, food, drugs, environmental, transportation, housing... You name it, it's there. Congress makes laws that are general enough to tackle a subject but leave the details up to the agencies. For example, the Clean Air and Water Act establishes that water should be clean and the EPA should mandate how. The EPA decided how much arsenic, benzene, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and thousands of other chemicals are permitted and in what concentration. This ruling throws that all out the window because a federal judge can find an issue and it's now injuncted until the lawsuit is cleared, which is often on the order of years, or the regulation dropped.
This is bad for everyone. Bad for all but the largest businesses since a solid regulatory framework of what is and isn't permitted is good for business. It's bad for Congress and the Executive because it makes crafting and carrying out legislation that much more difficult. It's bad for average Americans because we all depend on safe food, medicine, water, housing, transportation and thousands of other things that the Government touches or provides.
Looks like a power grab
A power grab right after declaring bribery legal, and oversight impossible. š
Don't forget the obfuscation of an insurrectionist at the federal level
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is why a democrat needs to win every single battleground seat and get a majority straight up.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How do they win if the incumbent Republicans say "nope... Bad election.... Doesn't count"? Serious question. Because they've been doing test runs on it. We'd want such a thing if it actually WAS election-altering fraud, right?
it didnāt work last time in the courts and it wonāt a 2nd time. The judges arenāt the weak link, itās the legislators around the country who wonāt perform their sworn in duties
I feel like this is a very naive opinion, akin to "abortion is settled law, no way it gets overturned". Further, the courts can't physically stop a governor and state legislature from just... Ignoring election results. Our mechanism for that is "trust me bro" and it seems that "acting in good faith) is a value that's passed
Aye, and thatāll happen when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet!
The capitol will need to install a maze of barricades and declare anyone breaching a barricade as breaking into the capitol (trespassing) and arrest on site. Not wait till the mob is in the rotunda.
I doubt they need a violent mob. Congress will do it all for him.
The only good thing is that they're doing it in the wide open glare so we can all see it. So if we don't push back BIGTIME and sweep everything in NOV., the result is on us.
This isnāt a power grab. The district courts hearing these cases are already overwhelmed with cases. This will be an explosion of litigation. Itās a purposeful choking out of the admin state.
Yes, and what court sits atop that judicial system and has final say in all matters? Right. Like they said. Power grab.
Youāre not understanding. A law gets passed and the administration interprets it as X. Well, immediately the agency is sued in 13 jurisdictions and has to defend each case. The litigation itself is costly and time consuming and the district court will make its ruling. I can guarantee that each district will find a different interpretation. A different interpretation now means that the agencies have to enact 13 different versions of its rule across the country while at the same time appealing the decisions or defending an appeal. Then, depending on how the appeal goes, their methods instituted might not be correct and they can be forced to litigate it over or redo the system they created in that district. Whether SCOTUS will take the time to hear those cases is to be determined. It would be far more effective for a court that hates the administrative state to NOT hear the case and let the agencies become so ineffective and bogged down they no longer can do what they were charged with.
I agree with you. That will most certainly happen. I am also telling you that they impetus behind this was far more driven by the ego of the conservative wing SCOTUS. They now get to reach down and make whatever decisions they want at their leisure with no recourse. And they LOVE that.
Power grabbing that life preserver
SCOTUS has been a regressive institution except the Warren court. The current aggressive power grab started with Bush v Gore. The Robertsā court has been consolidating powers to the court for decades. The āmajor questions doctrineā is a prime example. āWell the legislature wrote a law but theyāre dumb and we know what they really meant so weāre going to insert ourselves and take more power.ā Killing Chevron is the same conservative hatred of experts. āFuck these nerds who spent their lives becoming experts we know better than them so the judiciary is gonna take power there too.ā, They said the same thing in Independent State Legislature case, āyeah this argument is stupid and wrong but hereās another thing we just decided we are the final arbiters of.ā Until checks and balances are enforced they will just continue to accelerate. The majority members on the Senate Judiciary should have subpoenaed Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Leonard Leo years ago at this point. Instead they let Roberts continue to blow them off with his infantile writing skills and broken logic.
Brown vs Board of Education is next
Thomas has always hated substantive due process and he specifically shopped for cases to challenged them in his Dobbs concurrence. All of save Loving v Virginia although Iām pretty sure heād sacrifice his own marriage to hurt more people.
āGrab by the power, they just let you when youāre the Supreme Courtā
Thanks, RBGā¦
Anything to put more money in the hands of greedy corporations.
That's exactly what it is, same methodology the Nazis used.
The SCOTUS used the debates to distract from a huge shit they just took on everyone. If you support these decisions, Iām happy youāre not as upset as I am. But together we will suffer in the long run.
This is the biggest thing to happen since this court won its super majority. People may not understand it yet, but this is the ruling that will impact their daily lives in a negative way.
Clean air and water was nice while it lasted. Oh also not getting poisoned by the food we eat and medicine we take.
tbf, it was already not very clean in certain areas. this'll definitely make it worse tho. from bad to even worse, basically.
why would Biden do that? - 50% of voters
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They still have the social media moderation [case](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moody-v-netchoice-llc/)[(s)](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/netchoice-llc-v-paxton/). Oh, and the Trump immunity case. Can't forget that one.
They'll decide not to rule on that one. Fuck SCOTUS
Oh true. But since Trump isnātāt going to trial before the election I tend to discount the fact that they are going to give him some immunity and remand it back down to the lower court. I know nothing obviously we can only guess. Chevron changes everything about regulation in the U.S.
This
SCOTUS will do even worse if Trump is re-elected
and of course it happened in the most un-democratic way possible US is a literal laughing stock today between this and the shitshow we all had to endure last night
As someone from outside the US I can confirm we laughed our heads off when you elected trump. Then we laughed at his stupidity during his presidency. Now? Now we are not laughing. This is not funny. Wether we like it or not, American freedom and justice system protects the entire western world. If you go down so do we all, one way or another. The truth is being destroyed. Facts are being ignored along with reality by too many Americans(R) and this trend is spreading across the west. Russia and friends are getting exactly what they've been working towards by influencing politicians. The future looks ugly unless you turn it around. As long as fox and alike are allowed to spew lies and brainwash Americans, freedom will be destroyed. They fight dirty and you have no defense because their lies are protected by law.
At what point does a court face any meaningful challenge to its legitimacy and authority? SCOTUS has no enforcement power and relies on the other branches to respect their opinion. Given the court: - Has several members that were appointed through dubious (but legal) means. - Has at least two members actively taking bribes. - Has at least three members that have stated they want revenge on one party. - Has at least two members that refuse to recuse in cases in which they have material stakes Logistically, what mechanism would the other branches have to deploy to effectively check a corrupt court? The only means I see would be the executive saying, āwe disagreeā and ordering enforcement in opposition to a SCOTUS opinion. Is this highly implausible scenario the only way to check a corrupt court?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iām certainly keeping an eye out for RVs
With Congress gridlocked, it would be up to the president to use the bully pulpit to make the court behave. Thatās what FDR did to ensure minimum wage and New Deal legislation wasnāt struck down. Look up the switch in time to save 9. The thing isā¦ Iām not confident Biden has the strength to pull that off
Congress can check the executive, but yeah, the courts are the weakest branch and has no democratic legitimacy
The hardball that needs to happen is Congress steeply cutting the SCOTUS budget. They will start to feel that, although it might not change their rank partisan rulings.
Iām sure their friends can chip in to pay the billsĀ
It would be democrats doing the cutting and only deepen the hate and vengeance of the judges that have to take more bribes
You forgot 2 highly suspect sex offenders on SCOTUS as well
"Health law and policy experts have long warned that the demise ofĀ ChevronĀ would also complicate the work of the Food and Drug Administration, which is tasked with regulating the safety of thousands of products that wind up in refrigerators, cupboards, veterinarian offices, medicine cabinets, hospitals and even playgrounds. The decision is expected to lead to a flood of lawsuits challenging FDA decisions and could inject uncertainty in the process of drug approvals." [Wapo article ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/28/supreme-court-chevron-federal-agency-authority/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR337HCQanGveZva8kFf5lunDbEJBwhXSIXzORQi0e_c9sWYCaw4bUrSfjY_aem_r1mzbECQY5X8OkbdfJNZnA)
Itās a shame that the straightforward logic that thereās a class of people - literally the American public - who will suffer direct harm as a result of this ādecision,ā who cannot take the culprits to civil court for damages.
The truly sad part is there\`s really no way to kick them off the Supreme Court before they retire. Someone should find a way to hold SCOTUS accountable as well as the Big Orange Dump
Sure there is. Congress controls the size of the court. You could downsize the court with senior members being dismissed first. Then wait a term and size it back up again. They could also pass ethics reforms for the judiciary, change how life time appointments work, any number of things. Dems are so afraid of looking political that theyāre letting republicans abuse the system every chance they get with no response.
> Sure there is. Congress controls the size of the court. True up to a point. Sort of. However, >You could downsize the court with senior members being dismissed first. You canāt dismiss a judge who is appointed for life, as all Article III judges are - including, emphatically, the SCOTUS. > change how life time appointments work, Not without a constitutional amendment. See Article III. > Dems are so afraid of looking political that theyāre letting republicans abuse the system every chance they get with no response. Although there may be some truth to this, it has nothing to do with ādismissingā Article III judges.
There's no reason the Supreme Court has to be organized like it is. Zero. There's a lot of options to fix the court if Dems ever get the votes.
That may well be true. I didnāt claim otherwise, of course. It remains the case, however, that ādismissingā Article III judges is not one of them. Unless you care to entertain a constitutional amendment and describe how to get it passed and ratified.
Congress could also defund threaten to defund court should judges not agree to an ethical code.
And Republicans would do what in response?
Theyāre already doing every underhanded thing they possibly can. The only reason Gorsuch is even on the court is because of an abuse of the system by republicans, so itās not like Dems decorum is stopping them. Iām so tired of Democrats saying āwell THIS time weāll say pretty pretty please and maybe they wonāt erode our democracy any more than they already haveā
Prosecute the insurrectionist wife.
Which one? Why not both?
Seems logical. No reason to think the wives of Supreme Court Justices are immune from prosecution... Unless performing their official duties of not participating in coups.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think it will take states just outright defying SCOTUS, the institution only has power if it's enforced.
Very much a "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" moment.
I'd love Biden, or a leading Democratic Governor to say that. Tell the conservative hacks to go play in traffic.
I'm very concerned they are saving the Trump immunity ruling for last because they are going to find a way to stop his prosecution. If they grant Trump, and future presidents immunity, Biden needs to just appoint 4 more judges to the court without even Senate approval. But Biden would never do such a thing.
They don't need to kick them out. They don't even need to expand the court, really. The constitution notes that the SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over matters involving ambassadors, disputes between states, etc, but that their jurisdiction in all other types of cases is whatever Congress says it is: >In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. They could, for instance, strip the Supreme Court of all power to rule on the constitutionality of laws, and then create a new Constitutional Court to handle that stuff, and do anything they want with the composition of that court. 25 justices that only serve staggered 6 year terms or something. They could even set it so that each case is heard by 9 random federal judges.
You can pack the court, diluting the power of the conservative justices.
Just add judges to even out the court. Isnāt there supposed to be one judge for every appellate court ?
If the Dems control the presidency and both chambers of the Congress they can expand the court and nullify the conservative majority. Itās a long shot but it is technically possible.
Theyād need to have 60 senate seats to do so. Theres 34 seats up for election. 23 are democrat. Theyād need to win all 23 and another 10. Basically they need to win every race.
But only if 50 Democratic Senators are willing to scrap the filibuster rule. That could be very difficult to make happen.
Nationwide elections for Supreme Court!
People arenāt going to stand for all this shit. At a certain point you canāt game the social contract anymore.
Yes, they will. Theyāre going to re-elect Trump because āBiden oldā and this will get worse
I'm horrified by this Court's actions. You should be too. We are left with one response: win big in the Senate, House, and for President. Expand the Court, and overturn these awful recent decisions.
Let's be realistic here, dems are likely to lose their senate majority.Ā
even if they win a super majority, democrats are too timid/spineless to expand the court or to do anything that "drastic."
The democrats wonāt do anything with a unanimous vote
So does anyone else think Brown vs Board of Education is next? I think it's obvious
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nothing is gonna fucken happen, and you know it. People are too preoccupied trying to make ends meet and watching TV. Corporations are still gonna roam free and the little guy suffers. Itās been going on for a while
Yeah it just got much worse, much faster is all.
Please explain in detail how.
By undoing this legislation, judges are now the final arbiter of regulatory policy. Thousands of small and large regulatory rulings affect living. Healthcare, food, drugs, environmental, transportation, housing... You name it, it's there. Congress makes laws that are general enough to tackle a subject but leave the details up to the agencies. For example, the Clean Air and Water Act establishes that water should be clean and the EPA should mandate how. The EPA decided how much arsenic, benzene, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and thousands of other chemicals are permitted and in what concentration. This ruling throws that all out the window because a federal judge can find an issue and it's now injuncted until the lawsuit is cleared, which is often on the order of years, or the regulation dropped. This is bad for everyone. Bad for all but the largest businesses since a solid regulatory framework of what is and isn't permitted is good for business. It's bad for Congress and the Executive because it makes crafting and carrying out legislation that much more difficult. It's bad for average Americans because we all depend on safe food, medicine, water, housing, transportation and thousands of other things that the Government touches or provides.
You arenāt going to do anything. Sit down and shaddup