Along the way to tossing out the Biden administration's ozone pollution efforts, the Supreme Court quietly (and wrongly) reshaped how *all* federal courts should analyze requests for equitable relief
Professor Vladeck is unduly diplomatic on the Supreme Court’s radical jurisprudence. Its decisions no longer should be viewed as adjudication of disputes under the law and Constitution. It’s all about legislating from the bench to reach a predetermined result. Facts don’t matter. Precedent is irrelevant. Original intent is only of interest if consistent with the desired outcome.
The Supreme Court’s five or six justice right wing supermajority are on a mission to move the country far to the right and are in a hurry. It’s obvious they know their agenda is broadly unpopular, and they just don’t care.
The Court is helped by the utter dysfunction of Republicans in Congress who will not lift a finger to legislate anything that benefits consumers. The void is filled by the Court.
The past recent sessions are only a taste of the radicalism on the march, and until the Court is tamed they won’t stop.
Curt Flood was the St. Louis Cardinals All-Star center fielder who resisted being traded to Philadelphia after he had been on the St Louis team and lived in St Louis for 11 years. He said, among other things, that he was not "a piece of meat." (Willie Mays said that Curt Flood was the best center fielder he ever saw.)
Some baseball people and commentators believe that this case led to free agency, and it's possible that that is true. The Supreme Court decision was 5 to 3 against Curt Flood and in favor of allowing Major League Baseball to retain its exemption from antitrust laws. But what happened next was that there were a couple of players who did not sign their contracts and went ahead and played through the whole year. Until that time, a player contract included a provision - "the reserve clause" - that bound him to that club for the following year unless the club released him or traded him. But two players did not sign their contract, but played through the year, got paid, and then filed a request for arbitration declaring that they ought to be free agents. Major League Baseball had agreed with the Players Association previously that there would be an arbitration system set up for disputes between players and owners. Very likely the owners did not foresee that the arbitration system would be used for this purpose, but it was; and the arbitrator agreed with the players and declared them to be free agents. Then there gollowed a period of time during which some players refused to sign their contracts, or would only sign their contracts if it was agreed that they would become free agents at the conclusion of that particular contract. That's when the floodgates opened to the free agency that we now know.
But back to the beginning - there's a strong belief, which I suspect is true, that what Curt Flood did made it possible for those first two players to imagine that they could become free agents, and therefore didn't assign their contracts. And the arbitrator, of course, knew of the Curt Flood lawsuit and had it in mind that players shouldn't be treated as though they were pieces of meat.
To repeat. The court was a fundamental error by the founders. It has done far more harm than good. It does not deserve the respect Professor Vladeck gives it. Every time this corrupt and politicized cabal makes another egregious decision brilliant professors like,Professor Vladeck do lomg multi syllabic explanations without drawing obvious conclusions. For the last quarter century this court has done nothing but hurt America. The problem is not one or two decisions it’s,the whole damn thing.
So, does devolving all of this constitutional law and overriding of federal regulation mean that hereafter, California law will predominate as it tends to for all sorts of things, like emissions standards, that have effects on big and multinational business interests? If so, I think we’ll do OK.
And how will big business or, really, any business operate in a “Wild West” climate where businesses cannot rely on consistency in the application of laws and regulations either within or across state boundaries?
Seems like the SCOTUS majority actually does despise the United States and is intent upon its dissolution as a Republic.
I wouldn’t be in the least surprised, your comment notwithstanding, that the Supreme Court’s right wingers void state environmental laws (to take an example) as an infringement on interstate commerce. In short, there can be no valid federal laws if they are contrary to the GOP agenda and no more comprehensive state regulations if they exceed what the Republican Party wants.
I know this sounds cynical, but the current radicalized Supreme Court deserves no respect.
Steve, do you still subscribe to the view you expressed in #84, before the last few disastrous decisions from this term were handed down,
that reforms like those proposed by President Biden are ill-advised? In #84, you suggested you might be naive in thinking that the Justices were not necessarily “all in” and acting in bad faith. How much more evidence do you need to change your thinking in that regard?
The question of state sovereign immunity was the first major case decided by SCOTUS. The 11thA was passed to nullify that decision, Chisholmv.Georgia. Nevadav.Hall later reinforced state liability for the crimes/misbehavior of state employees, even when that employee is traveling interstate. Aldenv.Maine brought sovereign immunity back. I'm no lawywer, but this strikes me as one of the thorniest issues ever brought before the Court. The entire point of the Civil War was to establish that states *don't* have final say over voting. Preclearance and the Supremacy Clause have now gone the way of the dodo.
Professor Vladeck is unduly diplomatic on the Supreme Court’s radical jurisprudence. Its decisions no longer should be viewed as adjudication of disputes under the law and Constitution. It’s all about legislating from the bench to reach a predetermined result. Facts don’t matter. Precedent is irrelevant. Original intent is only of interest if consistent with the desired outcome.
The Supreme Court’s five or six justice right wing supermajority are on a mission to move the country far to the right and are in a hurry. It’s obvious they know their agenda is broadly unpopular, and they just don’t care.
The Court is helped by the utter dysfunction of Republicans in Congress who will not lift a finger to legislate anything that benefits consumers. The void is filled by the Court.
The past recent sessions are only a taste of the radicalism on the march, and until the Court is tamed they won’t stop.
Curt Flood was the St. Louis Cardinals All-Star center fielder who resisted being traded to Philadelphia after he had been on the St Louis team and lived in St Louis for 11 years. He said, among other things, that he was not "a piece of meat." (Willie Mays said that Curt Flood was the best center fielder he ever saw.)
Wasn’t that the case that led to the concept of free agency?
Some baseball people and commentators believe that this case led to free agency, and it's possible that that is true. The Supreme Court decision was 5 to 3 against Curt Flood and in favor of allowing Major League Baseball to retain its exemption from antitrust laws. But what happened next was that there were a couple of players who did not sign their contracts and went ahead and played through the whole year. Until that time, a player contract included a provision - "the reserve clause" - that bound him to that club for the following year unless the club released him or traded him. But two players did not sign their contract, but played through the year, got paid, and then filed a request for arbitration declaring that they ought to be free agents. Major League Baseball had agreed with the Players Association previously that there would be an arbitration system set up for disputes between players and owners. Very likely the owners did not foresee that the arbitration system would be used for this purpose, but it was; and the arbitrator agreed with the players and declared them to be free agents. Then there gollowed a period of time during which some players refused to sign their contracts, or would only sign their contracts if it was agreed that they would become free agents at the conclusion of that particular contract. That's when the floodgates opened to the free agency that we now know.
But back to the beginning - there's a strong belief, which I suspect is true, that what Curt Flood did made it possible for those first two players to imagine that they could become free agents, and therefore didn't assign their contracts. And the arbitrator, of course, knew of the Curt Flood lawsuit and had it in mind that players shouldn't be treated as though they were pieces of meat.
So: In this context, I have to assume "strong argument" simply means LOUD argument.
To repeat. The court was a fundamental error by the founders. It has done far more harm than good. It does not deserve the respect Professor Vladeck gives it. Every time this corrupt and politicized cabal makes another egregious decision brilliant professors like,Professor Vladeck do lomg multi syllabic explanations without drawing obvious conclusions. For the last quarter century this court has done nothing but hurt America. The problem is not one or two decisions it’s,the whole damn thing.
So, does devolving all of this constitutional law and overriding of federal regulation mean that hereafter, California law will predominate as it tends to for all sorts of things, like emissions standards, that have effects on big and multinational business interests? If so, I think we’ll do OK.
And how will big business or, really, any business operate in a “Wild West” climate where businesses cannot rely on consistency in the application of laws and regulations either within or across state boundaries?
Seems like the SCOTUS majority actually does despise the United States and is intent upon its dissolution as a Republic.
I wouldn’t be in the least surprised, your comment notwithstanding, that the Supreme Court’s right wingers void state environmental laws (to take an example) as an infringement on interstate commerce. In short, there can be no valid federal laws if they are contrary to the GOP agenda and no more comprehensive state regulations if they exceed what the Republican Party wants.
I know this sounds cynical, but the current radicalized Supreme Court deserves no respect.
Steve, do you still subscribe to the view you expressed in #84, before the last few disastrous decisions from this term were handed down,
that reforms like those proposed by President Biden are ill-advised? In #84, you suggested you might be naive in thinking that the Justices were not necessarily “all in” and acting in bad faith. How much more evidence do you need to change your thinking in that regard?
It’s Flood not Floyd v. Kuhn.
The question of state sovereign immunity was the first major case decided by SCOTUS. The 11thA was passed to nullify that decision, Chisholmv.Georgia. Nevadav.Hall later reinforced state liability for the crimes/misbehavior of state employees, even when that employee is traveling interstate. Aldenv.Maine brought sovereign immunity back. I'm no lawywer, but this strikes me as one of the thorniest issues ever brought before the Court. The entire point of the Civil War was to establish that states *don't* have final say over voting. Preclearance and the Supremacy Clause have now gone the way of the dodo.