2024 US Election
MistaT newsom probably has the most name recognition nationally (not sure its good recognition) and i think shapiro would be maybe the best candidate on merits. hes got a good record here in PA
mdgoonah41 I don't love what's happening, but this is a chicken little take. Interpretation of law is the job of the judiciary. I don't really see how this transfers any power from congress or any lawmaker - in fact, it seems to me it should do just the opposite. The executive branch gets hobbled, but that doesn't seem all that bad to me, especially considering who generally gets to be president...
- Edited
Coombs there is nothing chicken little about it.
In Chevron, the court unanimously announced an important principle of law that governed the nation until Friday: When a federal statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of it. Why? Congress delegates countless important calls to agencies—directing the EPA, for instance, to limit harmful benzene emissions, rather than providing the precise formula to determine what level of benzene emissions is harmful to humans. Congress writes statutes broadly because it expects these agencies to respond to new facts and adjust their enforcement accordingly.
Crucially, these agencies are staffed with experts who have deep knowledge and experience in the area where Congress seeks to regulate. Such experts can understand and execute regulations more proficiently than federal judges, who are, at best, dilettantes in most fields of regulation. For example, an EPA scientist is unlikely to confuse nitrous oxide (laughing gas) with nitrogen oxide (a smog-causing emission), as Justice Neil Gorsuch did in a Thursday opinion blocking an EPA rule. Moreover, most agencies are staffed with political appointees whom the president can appoint and remove at will. That makes them far more accountable to the citizenry than federal judges, who are guaranteed life tenure no matter how badly they butcher the law.
Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, is a masterwork of alarm and despair. “A rule of judicial humility,” she wrote, “gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.” The justice pulled no punches, bemoaning the majority’s reckless arrogance with outrage and contempt. “In one fell swoop,” the justice explained, “the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar."
and of course, this sums it up
Take a step back and consider how radically—and underhandedly—this Supreme Court is reshaping modern governance. By killing Chevron just one day after undermining agencies’ enforcement actions, the conservative supermajority is kneecapping the administrative state. It shares that goal with Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the far-right activists behind Project 2025. The Supreme Court is imposing a MAGA vision of the law on America, giving unelected judges near-unfathomable power to override the policy choices of the democratic branches. Through rulings dressed up in legalese, it strips power from the citizens and their elected representatives, establishing a monarchical judiciary with no known limits on its own authority. Anyone who cares about government of the people, by the people, for the people should share Kagan’s horror at what this court has wrought and what comes next
democrats are too cowardly to try and actually reform the court. republicans control the federal judiciary now, and likely will for the rest of this generation, if not longer. this ruling essentially puts every future democratic administration in a chokehold. attempt to put any kind of regulation in place the right disagrees with, and the court can step in and overrule them.
more
The implications of Loper Bright are too sweeping to exhaustively detail here, but its impact will be especially relevant in cases where, say, a federal agency is in Democratic hands, and a reviewing court is in conservative hands. How should “forever chemicals” be regulated? Don’t ask scientists who understand these chemicals’ harmful impacts on humans and the environment—ask Justice Neil Gorsuch, whose expertise is such that he recently authored an opinion about EPA regulation of “nitrogen oxides” while repeatedly referring to “nitrous oxide,” better known as laughing gas. How should geographic areas be defined for purposes of Medicare hospital reimbursements? Previously, that would have been a good question for the people running Medicare; now, it could fall to the likes of Judge Aileen Cannon. What regulations can the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issue to protect workers engaged in potentially dangerous work? That’s a fantastic decision not for regulators who have spent their careers dealing with actual workplace injuries, but for Judge Jim Ho, who is of the opinion that doctors experience an “aesthetic injury” when a woman gets an abortion.
Lol Newsom would be a mistake. Would be an easy attack over his record in California. Sky high prices for everything with highest taxes here but then there's a whole of host other issues. I'm sure the rest of America would love to have that!
I guess given the Dems love for a diverse candidate (not a white male), Whitmer would be the best choice she's from Michigan. Would help for WI and PA too.
In 12 years the decline has been incredible. This is elderly abuse at this stage.
trump actually praised CNN for how they handled the debate. that pivot to 'the middle' they chose to take 2 years ago is working out well
- Edited
SCOTUS just ruled in favor of trump in the immunity case. the POTUS is now a literal king who is accountable to no one. we are cooked.
- Edited
Hasn't that always been the case? Seems like an unofficial rule has just been put down in writing.
Obviously there needs to be clarity as what an official and unofficial action is.
Seems difficult to justify anything the president does related to election certification an "official act", seeing as the FEC and EAC are overseen by house and senate committees and are independent agencies over which the president has no jurisdiction.
the worst part of this election cycle coming up is that when trump moonwalks in to a 2nd term and republicans take back the senate, id bet there is a 99% chance that thomas and alito both retire. trump will then appoint 2 extremely unqualified 40 something hacks to SCOTUS, like aileen cannon and matthew kaczmarek. at that point, they will have a 6-3 hammerlock on the court for another 30 years. at that point, i'll have either already died or be on my deathbed.
Gazza M for sure, but it's not a very strong ruling and its one of those that you can imagine being overturned down the line when the worm inevitably turns.
They didn't define what an official act is, so that's where the lawyering will have to focus moving forward. I could see an argument that official acts can only exist within the framework of presidential jurisdiction being quite difficult to refute, but these days who knows.
- Edited
fascinating to watch the corporate media suddenly being so ruthless with their coverage of Biden, particularly CNN. it started within minutes of the debate ending. theyve become super adversarial, almost hostile, with anyone defending biden on their air. calls must have been made. there's a new script to follow