The Supremes

[MrX 734]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That’s so ridiculous I don’t know where to began. Asserting that congress can “get its shit together” to produce workable prescriptive legislation in areas of specialized expertise is as silly and fantastical as the idea that judges are in a better position to interpret legislation than actual experts appointed to regulatory posts.
OF COURSE expertise than be applied in all kinds of ways. That’s what the checks and balances around appointment and agency oversight are for. Good grief.

Yes I totally said Congress would get its shit together. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

1 minute ago, MrX said:

Yes I totally said Congress would get its shit together. 

Thats not their shit to get together, legislation can’t do that. 

[MrX 734]

12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Thats not their shit to get together, legislation can’t do that. 

Legislation couldn’t codify Chevron?

[Satchel 6938]

Amy Coney Barrett Rips Supreme Court’s Absurd January 6 Ruling

Justice Amy Coney Barrett broke ranks with the conservative majority on the Supreme Court Friday, leveraging strong words against her colleagues for their interpretation of Fischer v. United States. After the court ruled 6–3 that the Justice Department overstepped in charging hundreds of January 6 rioters with obstruction, the Trump-appointed conservative judge used her dissenting opinion to tear apart the decision that would narrow all future obstruction charges, including potentially Trump’s.

https://mail.yahoo.com/m/folders/1/messages/AK1Jz8Nqn-JUZoDOLgHckNii_fk?.src=ym&reason=mobile

Noting that the court didn’t dispute the details of the case—namely that Congress’s joint session was an “official proceeding,” that the rioters delayed the proceeding, and that Joseph Fischer’s trespassing and brush-up with law enforcement during the ordeal was “part of a successful effort to forcibly halt the certification of the election results”—Barrett questioned why the court would question the “open and shut” obstruction case.

“Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said,” she wrote, continuing to explain that the legal code for charging Fischer was a “very broad provision” and that, “admittedly, events like January 6th were not its target. (Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?)

 

“But statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway,” Barrett wrote. “The Court, abandoning that approach, does textual backflips to find some way—any way—to narrow the reach of subsection (c)(2),” referring to part of the statute used to charge Fischer for his actions on January 6.

In doing so, the court “failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches” to punish illegal conduct that occurred on January 6, according to Barrett.

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

11 minutes ago, MrX said:

Legislation couldn’t codify Chevron?

If You’re asking legislation to be not just clear but prescient beyond interpretation or ambiguity on specialized technical areas, That’s absurd. 
If you are asking if a law could instruct the courts to defer. That would be a bad law. Its all situational.

Edited June 30 by Bozo_Casanova

[tx 3 putt 76980]

 

[tx 3 putt 76980]

 

[Chad Fuck 17684]

No other help is coming.

I know.

[Goofyboy 3293]

The judicial branch doesn’t have any power. Maybe it’s time for Biden to just flat ignore them. Let’s go dictator Biden!

We are fucked no matter what.

[SKJ 1311]

5 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

The judicial branch doesn’t have any power. Maybe it’s time for Biden to just flat ignore them. Let’s go dictator Biden!

We are fucked no matter what.

 

[BamaATL 16593]

1 minute ago, Goofyboy said:

The judicial branch doesn’t have any power. Maybe it’s time for Biden to just flat ignore them. Let’s go dictator Biden!

We are fucked no matter what.

If they rule that President's have complete immunity on Monday, you may well be correct.  If that's the case, what's to stop Biden from unilaterally dismissing the court and start just making his own rulings?  Why stop there, dismiss Congress and write your own legislation.  

I was talking to my wife the other day and we came to the conclusion that if we are in fact to live in a dictatorship, I'd rather it be Biden's than Trump.  

[Goofyboy 3293]

If they rule that President's have complete immunity on Monday, you may well be correct.  If that's the case, what's to stop Biden from unilaterally dismissing the court and start just making his own rulings?  Why stop there, dismiss Congress and write your own legislation.  
I was talking to my wife the other day and we came to the conclusion that if we are in fact to live in a dictatorship, I'd rather it be Biden's than Trump.  

I would like his first order of business to be to roll gov wheels off a cliff.

[wildcat09 29354]

Those of you who still think Congress can just fix whatever SCOTUS has broken still don’t understand the conservative majority’s whole deal. 

[TwiceHorn 31488]

10 hours ago, MrX said:

Legislation couldn’t codify Chevron?

Probably not, would violate separation of powers.

Congress could, though, revisit the enabling statutes of executive agencies and tweak them to grant more power, or curtail it, as need be.  In theory.

That doesn't require agency-level expertise.  It does require a functional Congress though.

[TwiceHorn 31488]

25 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Those of you who still think Congress can just fix whatever SCOTUS has broken still don’t understand the conservative majority’s whole deal. 

It's ironic that the basic justification for all this shit is that it is more democratic to force Congressional involvement in agency actions.

But the whole practical premise of it is a non-functional Congress, so nobody can get anything done.  They force less government by breaking it.

Edited June 30 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27678]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Congress could, though, revisit the enabling statutes of executive agencies and tweak them to grant more power, or curtail it, as need be.  In theory.

Sounds like a great way to burn years of political capital just to pass a law that clarence and alito don't just knock down for a fee

[TwiceHorn 31488]

18 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Sounds like a great way to burn years of political capital just to pass a law that clarence and alito don't just knock down for a fee

But, that's how it should work.  Congress makes the initial delegation to an agency with leaders appointed by the executive.  Congress should monitor the agency, its real impacts on policies, people, and industry, and fiddle accordingly with their operative statutes on a fairly continuous basis. 

That's what happens at the largely apolitical Patent & Trademark Office, which is the oldest administrative/executive agency in the country.  Even the non-functional Congress manages to do that from time to time and for better and worse.

For the more controversial agencies, they're lazy and unwilling to legislate for various reasons (political capital) and leave agencies with the same broad, ambiguous, or unduly narrow, statutes they've always had.  If they amended the statutes with specific grants of power, which don't necessarily have to be used, Clarence and Sambo would have little or no influence on it.

Edited June 30 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29354]

45 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's ironic that the basic justification for all this shit is that it is more democratic to force Congressional involvement in agency actions.

But the whole practical premise of it is a non-functional Congress, so nobody can get anything done.  They force less government by breaking it.

That's true, but not my point. Even if Congress were better functioning and passing "less ambiguous" regulations, this SCOTUS would still strike them down. These newest decisions barely pretend to be law. They're not even telling Congress what the bar is or how they can meet it. It's purely vibes based "we know what's kosher when we see it (and that's only those regulations passed by a Republican president that we're ideologically cool with)." They're the Knights who say Ni.

[TwiceHorn 31488]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

That's true, but not my point. Even if Congress were better functioning and passing "less ambiguous" regulations, this SCOTUS would still strike them down. These newest decisions barely pretend to be law. They're not even telling Congress what the bar is or how they can meet it. It's purely vibes based "we know what's kosher when we see it (and that's only those regulations passed by a Republican president that we're ideologically cool with)." They're the Knights who say Ni.

If the court is so inclined, as they seem to be, they can do that with or without Chevron deference.  This will mostly affect how the lower courts deal with it.

I might add, that Chevron "deference" is just another form of Calvinball, like it's always been.  We can talk about what it means, but it means whatever the courts say it means.  QED Calvinball.  It's not a new thing.

Activist conservatives are a new thing, but we've always been playing Calvinball.

Edited June 30 by TwiceHorn

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Congress could, though, revisit the enabling statutes of executive agencies and tweak them to grant more power, or curtail it, as need be.  In theory.

That doesn't require agency-level expertise.  It does require a functional Congress though.

There has never been a legislative body in history that could do in practice what you’re describing. There’s an extraordinarily dangerous premise to this decision: that there is a legally discernible “correct” regulatory interpretation of enabling laws. That’s just not reality in complicated fields.

[TwiceHorn 31488]

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

There has never been a legislative body in history that could do in practice what you’re describing. There’s an extraordinarily dangerous premise to this decision: that there is a legally discernible “correct” regulatory interpretation of enabling laws. That’s just not reality in complicated fields.

The United States Congress has done it with the PTO for 187 years.

I don't disagree that this is a dangerous precedent, but a lot of that stems from the fact that Congress is non-functional and lacks will on many regulatory issues.

Edited June 30 by TwiceHorn

[Gap03 3308]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The United States Congress has done it with the PTO for 187 years.

I don't disagree that this is a dangerous precedent, but a lot of that stems from the fact that Congress is non-functional and lacks will on many regulatory issues.

... and is, on the whole, so stunningly scientifically ignorant at a time when we are confronting potentially existential threats (climate change, AI, etc.).  I'm sure that this will work out well for us, though. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The United States Congress has done it with the PTO for 187 years.

I don't disagree that this is a dangerous precedent, but a lot of that stems from the fact that Congress is non-functional and lacks will on many regulatory issues.

No offense but the PTO isn’t anything like an industry or regulatory space and Congress just isn’t in the right spot to do what you’re talking about. 

[TwiceHorn 31488]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

No offense but the PTO isn’t anything like an industry or regulatory space and Congress just isn’t in the right spot to do what you’re talking about. 

Well, it's how it is supposed to work. I acknowledged up thread that often the USPTO is fairly apolitical.

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, it's how it is supposed to work. I acknowledged up thread that often the USPTO is fairly apolitical.

I don’t want to get sidetracked into all the problems with the patent office, so suffice it to say that regardless of how political it is, it doesn’t work very well.

But more important is this- not only does it not work as well as a real regulator, it also doesn’t do anything like real regulation. There’s just nothing analogous between what PTO is responsible for and the regulatory remit of EPA, OSHA, FDA, FDIC, etc. 

Edited June 30 by Bozo_Casanova

['stache 21817]

On 6/29/2024 at 10:33 AM, SubliminalHorn said:

Congress could fix the chevron mess right? Pass a law about deferring to federal agencies yadda yadda yadda? 

If the court disagrees with an agency’s implementing regulations Congress can amend the underlying statute to match the regulation, but good luck with that, lol.

Edited June 30 by 'stache

[TwiceHorn 31488]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don’t want to get sidetracked into all the problems with the patent office, so suffice it to say that regardless of how political it is, it doesn’t work very well.

But more important is this- not only does it not work as well as a real regulator, it also doesn’t do anything like real regulation. There’s just nothing analogous between what PTO is responsible for and the regulatory remit of EPA, OSHA, FDA, FDIC, etc. 

Well, that may well be, but it has almost nothing to do with the legislation.  Or the interplay between Congress, the Office, and the Courts as pertains to the PTO's implementation of Article I, Section 8, Title 35, U.S. Code, or its own regulations at TItle 37, CFR.

I fear that you (or at least many on the thread) are confusing the actual regulations, the rules, with the statute.  The statute tends to be much broader than the rules.  The critical question then becomes are the rules consistent with the statute, which in turn requires in many cases an interpretation of the statute.

For example, the recent Clean Water Act decision, where SCOTUS said EPA can't regulate inland waterways that don't "communicate" with interstate bodies.  That relied entirely on Congress' use of the term "waters of the United States" in the statute.   WIth or without Chevron deference, Congress if it functioned, could amend that definition to include such inland waterways.

Now, the Supremes might overrule that enactment on various grounds, but it solves the statutory rulemaking authority issue right quick.

Edited June 30 by TwiceHorn

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, that may well be, but it has almost nothing to do with the legislation.  Or the interplay between Congress, the Office, and the Courts as pertains to the PTO's implementation of Article I, Section 8, Title 35, U.S. Code, or its own regulations at TItle 37, CFR.

I fear that you (or at least many on the thread) are confusing the actual regulations, the rules, with the statute.  The statute tends to be much broader than the rules.  The critical question then becomes are the rules consistent with the statute, which in turn requires in many cases an interpretation of the statute.

For example, the recent Clean Water Act decision, where SCOTUS said EPA can't regulate inland waterways that don't "communicate" with interstate bodies.  That relied entirely on Congress' use of the term "waters of the United States" in the statute.   WIth or without Chevron deference, Congress if it functioned, could amend that definition to include such inland waterways.

Now, the Supremes might overrule that enactment on various grounds, but it solves the statutory rulemaking authority issue right quick.

Fair enough, but that’s an easy one. 

[tx 3 putt 76980]

Congress and Judges about to take it in from corporate America 

[Dnaguy 11978]

I wonder what the ultimate end game is for this court.

What is the world they want to see?

 

[TwiceHorn 31488]

8 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

I wonder what the ultimate end game is for this court.

What is the world they want to see?

 

That article up thread by Mark Lemley suggests that it is giving power to itself. 

On the one hand, conservatives seem to like "small government," but they can't do much about it, so they settle for broken government instead. And that tends to mean dysfunction in Congress. 

And I'm not completely sure giving the Court more power actually helps conservatives if a) they are not in power on the court and elsewhere and/or b) congress becomes a relatively effective and efficient body again 

 

[tx ind 7013]

 

57 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

What is the world they want to see?

 

Free RVs and vacations with rich people

[BamaATL 16593]

2 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

I wonder what the ultimate end game is for this court.

What is the world they want to see?

 

This court wants to more or less curtail the Federal government and in particular knee cap enforcement without judicial review.  In essence they want to deregulate everything, which benefits the wealthy and wealthy corporations (I.e. their people).  In the meantime, ordinary folks are going to take it in the shorts.  They met that goal this past week.  

 

On the civil liberty side, they want to do disingenuous things like claim that precedent from things like the Salem Witch Trials have bearing on today's society when it comes to individual liberty and choice, and bad news there, they've done that as well.  All this to satisfy both their own religious fanaticism as well as their party's religious fanatic base.  They will site originalism as it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't (see abortion vs 2nd Amendment issues).  

 

[Nivek 16934]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

On the one hand, conservatives seem to like "small government,"

 

Proof?  

[Goofyboy 3293]

Proof?  

Hannity says so every show, along with his other canned lines.

[tx 3 putt 76980]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That article up thread by Mark Lemley suggests that it is giving power to itself. 

On the one hand, conservatives seem to like "small government," but they can't do much about it, so they settle for broken government instead. And that tends to mean dysfunction in Congress. 

And I'm not completely sure giving the Court more power actually helps conservatives if a) they are not in power on the court and elsewhere and/or b) congress becomes a relatively effective and efficient body again 

 

 

judges are cheaper / easier to bribe than congress 

[Dbeasy 15052]

Yesterday’s ruling on homelessness is the perfect example of how I’m so deeply conflicted about both political parties. 

For whatever reason, my two most hot button political topics are wealth inequality and homelessness. And my positions on both are fairly extreme.  But, they are the extreme views of each end of the political spectrum, not one end.

On wealth inequality, I have a fairly far left view, that wealth is so imbalanced that , for example, I believe a wealth tax of some type is necessary. 

On homelessness, I believe cities should have significant powers to manage it, including banning camping. Seeing three left justices actually vote against the power of cities to ban camping sent shivers down my spine. I find that position completely unconscionable, and things like that are what keep me from fully embracing the Democratic Party. 

In my opinion, both parties are forgetting the view that laws and actions by government should always be based on a reasonable balance of giving individuals a fair opportunity. No more. No less. And both parties violate that over and over. 

[Captainant 27678]

5 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

In my opinion, both parties are forgetting the view that laws and actions by government should always be based on a reasonable balance of giving individuals a fair opportunity. No more. No less. And both parties violate that over and over

I can't disagree that neither party does a good job of actually governing, but I think it's important to consider the "why". Republicans actively want to take away civil rights and turn women into chattel and have been destroying public education for their donors private ed play. Democrats are just a hot mess of out of touch olds fighting internal power squabbles rather than focusing on actual political strategic outcomes. 

The repubs are actively shitty, and the dems are just incredibly ineffectual and distractible. I do think the "why" matters even if outcomes are shit either way 

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

On the one hand, conservatives seem to like "small government," but they can't do much about it, so they settle for broken government instead. And that tends to mean dysfunction in Congress. 

They aren’t conservatives anymore, and neither are the FedSoc judges. We need to stop pretending that there’s some kind of mainline American thought tradition at work here.

[Neonmoon 38129]

17 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Yesterday’s ruling on homelessness is the perfect example of how I’m so deeply conflicted about both political parties. 

For whatever reason, my two most hot button political topics are wealth inequality and homelessness. And my positions on both are fairly extreme.  But, they are the extreme views of each end of the political spectrum, not one end.

On wealth inequality, I have a fairly far left view, that wealth is so imbalanced that , for example, I believe a wealth tax of some type is necessary. 

On homelessness, I believe cities should have significant powers to manage it, including banning camping. Seeing three left justices actually vote against the power of cities to ban camping sent shivers down my spine. I find that position completely unconscionable, and things like that are what keep me from fully embracing the Democratic Party. 

In my opinion, both parties are forgetting the view that laws and actions by government should always be based on a reasonable balance of giving individuals a fair opportunity. No more. No less. And both parties violate that over and over. 

I don't find your view on homelessness extreme. It is a rather complicated issue, and there is no "right answer" in my opinion, due to the various realties of the issues. Should cities/municipalities/communities have the right to ban certain unwanted activities? Sure, within reason. I don't think anyone is against nuisance or noise ordinances. People need to able to coexist in peace. What makes it complicated is the human element. No one wants to live where the unhoused are allowed to obstruct normal society due to their inability to obtain/afford housing. "Where should they go?" and "Are you seriously criminalizing poverty?" are very legitimate questions that don't have easy answers. The hard truth is existing requires consuming resources and expending waste. Additionally, the rest of society works and pays fees to exist without acting like a bunch of animals fighting each other for resources and land. This group doesn't want non-contributors taking a shit on the sidewalk they paid for, and they shouldn't feel bad for requesting that prohibition. Of course, the unhoused are human beings, and every effort should be made to house, feed, and provide resources in the hopes that they may no longer need said assistance. At the same time, people that refuse to accept help and work towards becoming independent shouldn't be allowed to camp wherever they want.

[wildcat09 29354]

45 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Yesterday’s ruling on homelessness is the perfect example of how I’m so deeply conflicted about both political parties. 

For whatever reason, my two most hot button political topics are wealth inequality and homelessness. And my positions on both are fairly extreme.  But, they are the extreme views of each end of the political spectrum, not one end.

On wealth inequality, I have a fairly far left view, that wealth is so imbalanced that , for example, I believe a wealth tax of some type is necessary. 

On homelessness, I believe cities should have significant powers to manage it, including banning camping. Seeing three left justices actually vote against the power of cities to ban camping sent shivers down my spine. I find that position completely unconscionable, and things like that are what keep me from fully embracing the Democratic Party. 

In my opinion, both parties are forgetting the view that laws and actions by government should always be based on a reasonable balance of giving individuals a fair opportunity. No more. No less. And both parties violate that over and over. 

The idea that being too poor to own a home couldn’t be made a criminal offense sent shivers down your spine?

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

11 hours ago, Nivek said:

Proof?  

Just look how Dubya created the massive, bloated bureaucracy of the DHS. I mean, duh. 

[BamaATL 16593]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The idea that being too poor to own a home couldn’t be made a criminal offense sent shivers down your spine?

This my opinion, and only that.  Homelessness has as much to due with mental illness and substance abuse than anything.  While we have housing assistance programs in place to help people, A) they have to pursue it, B) most of it requires sobriety.  One of the problems with this is when the government stopped having state run mental health facilities (admittedly conditions where horrible) these folks had no where to go, and still don't, save jail.  Additionally, we've never managed substance abuse really at all for indigent folks.  If we are serious about helping these people, we need to invest in the resources necessary for it to actually happen.  Part of this has to include tax increases for the ultra wealthy.  

I get that most people don't want to have a homeless encampment near them, but to me it should serve as a reminder that we choose not to give a shit about this problem and truly address it.  It's a societal problem, and a choice.  

[troph 24810]

I have no problem with camping bans, provided there is a designated place for homeless to set up. That was the essence of the 9th circuit ruling - without an alternative you have deemed existence criminal. Of course the ruling overturned the 9th circuit, but I agree in simple terms, effectively criminalizing existence is a violation of probably several constitutional provisions.

I think the hotels are dumb. Absent an overhaul of state provided mental health care and substance abuse treatment, I think the city should set up a couple hundred acre tent facility. Bathrooms, showers, police presence, etc. enforce the law.

i think the ban on camping elsewhere should also be enforced, because connected with that is petty crime, harassment, and a depression best use of land and resources. Austin had a downtown homeless problem in the 70’s and 80’s. And no one wanted to be downtown because of it.

Edited July 1 by troph

[Ghost of LL 15531]

Roberts, C.J., in deep punt formation on immunity.

[Js1 85353]

So immunity for constitutional acts, presumptive immunity for official acts, no immunity for unofficial acts?

So yeah, it means who decides what actions fall under the 3 categories?

[hornbri 1399]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

So immunity for constitutional acts, presumptive immunity for official acts, no immunity for unofficial acts?

So yeah, it means who decides what actions fall under the 3 categories?

Apparently it is in pages 16-33 of the 112 page ruling…

[wildcat09 29354]

1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

This my opinion, and only that.  Homelessness has as much to due with mental illness and substance abuse than anything.  While we have housing assistance programs in place to help people, A) they have to pursue it, B) most of it requires sobriety.  One of the problems with this is when the government stopped having state run mental health facilities (admittedly conditions where horrible) these folks had no where to go, and still don't, save jail.  Additionally, we've never managed substance abuse really at all for indigent folks.  If we are serious about helping these people, we need to invest in the resources necessary for it to actually happen.  Part of this has to include tax increases for the ultra wealthy.  

I get that most people don't want to have a homeless encampment near them, but to me it should serve as a reminder that we choose not to give a shit about this problem and truly address it.  It's a societal problem, and a choice.  

Today more than ever, homelessness isn't even about mental illness or substance abuse it's just about poverty. Because there's like five cities that have actually built enough housing to accommodate the growth they've seen in the past decade. It's estimated that anywhere from 40 to 60% of homeless people nationwide have jobs but still can't afford shelter.  This specific case that we're discussing was about whether homeless people can be jailed for camping when there are no homeless shelters to go to. I think it's inhuman and un-American to throw someone in jail simply because they can't afford rent and have nowhere to go.

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Roberts, C.J., in deep punt formation on immunity.

Called it. 

[Mo Horn 8848]

So he gets his delay tactics codified and everything relies on election day in November. 

[miguelito 11266]

They couldn't have issued that decision weeks or months ago?