With more decisions coming today at 10 ET, a quick preview of the remaining 6–8 Supreme Court decisions, with some speculation about which justice was assigned the majority opinion in each case
Bets are on that the final case addressed will be Trump v. United States, then a quick dash out the back door into a waiting limo, then a private plane to some exclusive resort, for a much-needed rest from the rigors of being a Supreme Court Justice steering the course of our country.
Well, events happened after this post. The best thing you can say about Chevron is that if trump wins and replaces agency experts with loyalists, the court won't have to pay attention to the idiocies of the loyalists.
On the contrary, I think they my well have to pay attention to E.G. the Anti Vaccers and the Gunslingers .And worse yet, the Abortion haters. Robert's asserts that the Courts are competent to interpret "technical statutes" I will take him at his word despite the evidence out of e.g. the 5th Circuit or the 11th. But that is not what tese cases are about. These cases are about rules usually highly technical and the bozos on the Court are no more capable of interpreting technical rules than the loyalists who would dracft them under Trump.
I hope that Professor Vladeck spends more time on the outrageous overruling of Chevron. Robert's pretends to simply apply the standard APA provision that a rule or policy cannot be "arbitrary , capricious or contrary to law." He asserts correctly that Law is the province of the Courts but he ignores the fact that what is "arbitrary or capricious" is a question of fact. Chevron has always provided that the Courts should decide whether Congress has empowered the agency to regulate a particular subject .But statutes are by their very nature open textured because , unlike the Courts, Congress does make policies "for the ages"--the Communications Act e.g. is 90 years old . So Robert's crabbed or artificial ("major questions") readings of Federal Statutes, especially those involving highly technical matters such as water or air pollution or spectrum allocation , puts the Court in the position of deciding matters that are simply beyond its competence And their ignorance is compounded by the arrogance of the refusal --thanks to Scalia ---of the majority to consider legislative history on grounds that it might produce results that the Court does not like . If it weren't so profoundly dangerous to the health , wellbeing and the economic welfare of the Country, the idea that any of the arrogant majority can understand much less discern how to control AI or water pollution or radio navigation devices etc would be laughable. Regrettably it is not a laughing matter
I can’t handle this after the debate last night, I’m too fragile…
Bets are on that the final case addressed will be Trump v. United States, then a quick dash out the back door into a waiting limo, then a private plane to some exclusive resort, for a much-needed rest from the rigors of being a Supreme Court Justice steering the course of our country.
Well, events happened after this post. The best thing you can say about Chevron is that if trump wins and replaces agency experts with loyalists, the court won't have to pay attention to the idiocies of the loyalists.
On the contrary, I think they my well have to pay attention to E.G. the Anti Vaccers and the Gunslingers .And worse yet, the Abortion haters. Robert's asserts that the Courts are competent to interpret "technical statutes" I will take him at his word despite the evidence out of e.g. the 5th Circuit or the 11th. But that is not what tese cases are about. These cases are about rules usually highly technical and the bozos on the Court are no more capable of interpreting technical rules than the loyalists who would dracft them under Trump.
leaving off my sarcasm hat, I'd agree
I hope that Professor Vladeck spends more time on the outrageous overruling of Chevron. Robert's pretends to simply apply the standard APA provision that a rule or policy cannot be "arbitrary , capricious or contrary to law." He asserts correctly that Law is the province of the Courts but he ignores the fact that what is "arbitrary or capricious" is a question of fact. Chevron has always provided that the Courts should decide whether Congress has empowered the agency to regulate a particular subject .But statutes are by their very nature open textured because , unlike the Courts, Congress does make policies "for the ages"--the Communications Act e.g. is 90 years old . So Robert's crabbed or artificial ("major questions") readings of Federal Statutes, especially those involving highly technical matters such as water or air pollution or spectrum allocation , puts the Court in the position of deciding matters that are simply beyond its competence And their ignorance is compounded by the arrogance of the refusal --thanks to Scalia ---of the majority to consider legislative history on grounds that it might produce results that the Court does not like . If it weren't so profoundly dangerous to the health , wellbeing and the economic welfare of the Country, the idea that any of the arrogant majority can understand much less discern how to control AI or water pollution or radio navigation devices etc would be laughable. Regrettably it is not a laughing matter
We will also have a clean-up order list eventually which will give justices the chance to talk about stuff.