While eyes are on Trump, Supreme Court conservatives prepare to rewrite the rulebook

For the constant stream of nonsense excorciating Donald Trump and his supporters, here's a summary of why he remains the greatest President of my lifetime.

Progressives should read it and weep.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/23/poli...ourt-regulations-biskupic-analysis/index.html

 

I would thank the Republican voters who gave him the needed majority in Congress to get his nominees put through more than Trump himself. It's hardly unheard of for a Republican president to nominate conservative justices to the bench.

 

Are you qualifying Trump as "the greatest President of my lifetime" because of the Supreme Court Justices nominated by Trump?
If I could make a point, and not because I don't like Trump, but just trying to keep it real, what Republican president wouldn't have nominated 3 Supreme Court Justices? And it would have only been two if not for McConnell, so he must be your favorite Senate Majority leader of all time?
I honestly don't mind giving Trump his due for doing something smart or wise, but this doesn't fit either category, IMO.

 

Dc has over-stepped their role for some time. It's about time liberty gets put back to the citizens

 

How do you reconcile your desire to give power to the citizens with Trump’s effort to overturn the will of the citizens by attempting to steal the 2020 election from the legitimate winner?

 

There's only one rulebook and that's the Constitution.

If the government is violating the Constitution, then the Supreme Court is upholding the rules, not rewriting them.

 

Because the bolded part didn't happen.

 

what in the heck does DC over-stepping have to do with Trump? Good lord give it a break.

Which party is in the WH right now?

Go spike the ball and do your happy dance................yeah team Democrat. Then feel free to comment if you think congress and bureaucrats have over-stepped their power granted by the Constitution.

 

do you think the CNN opinion piece linked in the OP would mention that? Note the terms used in the oped from CNN

the key is "right wing"

do they ever use the term left-wing when discussing the Democrat party?

And FYI, this is an opinion piece

 

Because he appointed activist justices to legislate from the bench? It has proven to be a very effective fascist tactic. But I'm not sure most conservatives like it when justices do that. At least... they didn't USE to.

 

There's nothing "activist" about restoring original Constitutional intent.

 

Dismantling regulations and laws for the benefit of corporate entities and against the interests of Americans has long been a goal of conservatives. They have that in common with fascists.

 

Come now. Surely you know by now "originalism" is just a disingenuous rationale constructed to justify rulings matching the radical views of the Court's conservatives. A rationale they ignore when it suits them.

 

'When that challenge to the Chevron principle was heard last month, Gorsuch suggested it unfairly tipped the balance to agency power. “The government always wins,” he said. “Chevron is exploited against the individual in favor of the government.”'

That's the way the government wants it.
That certainly is no how the Framers intended it, or how Americans want it.

 

Fair enough. But other Presidents didn't. EPA was created in 1970 under Nixon. Chevron was 40 years ago under Reagan. Massachusetts was 17 years ago under Bush.

And as for Cocaine Mitch, he's certainly great. So was Gronkowski. But Brady is the GOAT.

I'm an automotive powertrain engineer with a background in regulation and associated legal matters. I wasn't particularly interested in Trump in 2016. Kind of amused that he won, but not expecting much at all.

Then one of the first things he did was cancel EPA CO2 regulations requiring the equivalent of 40 MPG that Obama had rushed through on his way out the door. Whoa! That's a pro move.

Then, since EPA has to update those regs every 5 years, he took all his 5 years to release regs that were marginally more stringent than the 27.5 MPG under the old NHTSA CAFE regs.

Now another 5 years have passed and Biden's EPA is proposing regs that will require 67% of all new cars and light trucks to be EVs by 2032, on the way to banning new internal combustion engines completely by 2035.

Now I realize that the third Justice was an entirely random opportunity, but it was no secret that Ginsburg was quite old and not in the best of health and the Democrats just made a lousy bet. But other than that, Gorsuch is the son of a former EPA administrator and may have helped strategize defeating Chevron (and its follow on Massachusetts).

And, boom! Chevron is likely to fall in June.

That's GOAT territory.

 

and now that the Senate Republicans change the votes needed to 50 for SC judges, both sides will always pick far right or left judges

 

It's probably too late to start whining now.

 

Just like Harry Reid changing the Senate rules to 50 votes for a spending bill. They were told that they'd probably regret it.

 

yep, dems did it for lower courts
repubs did it for SC picks

I denounced both when they happened

 

I'd suggest you go back and review old Schoolhouse Rock episodes. You know: the Legislature legislates, the Executive executes, and the Judicial judges.

That's how the Framers intended it.

 

It's about to become established precedent.

 

Ahhh, so "progressives" are angry that their "protection" racket is getting broken up.

 

I suggest that you go back and review why the Court is preparing to jettison Chevron. It allows Executive Agencies to legislate without Judicial Oversight.

For more: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/21/prof-thomas-merrill-on-does-chevron-mandate-brand-x/

'Brand X held that when a court decides a question of statutory interpretation that would be eligible for Chevron deference if decided by an agency, and the agency subsequently disagrees with the judicial interpretation, the courts are obliged to follow the agency interpretation, not the prior judicial interpretation. Justice Scalia, in dissent, described Brand X as a "breathtaking novelty: judicial decisions subject to reversal by executive officers." He added that this was "probably unconstitutional."'

'The petitioners in the two pending cases were eager to remind the Court about Brand X in part because of the presumed aversion of the Justices to the idea that an administrative agency can "overrule" a decision of an Article III court—including potentially the Supreme Court.'

'Undoubtedly, they also thought Brand X was a perfect illustration of the instability in the law that they argue is caused by Chevron. Brand X upheld under Chevron an interpretation of the FCC during the Bush II administration that internet services providers are not subject to common carrier obligations under the federal communications laws. This interpretation, in turn, was later reversed by the Obama FCC, which was then reversed again by the Trump FCC, which itself is now slated to be reversed by the Biden FCC. In short, Brand X led to flip-flopping about the status of internet service providers with every election of a President of a different political party.'

'Emily Bremer, in a recent post at the Yale Journal on Regulation, has argued that Brand X flows ineluctably from Chevron. This was also the view of the petitioners in Loper Bright and Relentless: if the Court wants to get rid of Brand X, it has to overrule Chevron.'

 

And with agencies under the direction of the Executive Branch has the power to legislate then the Constitution is not being followed. Only difference between what the agencies like the EPA does and what the Legislative Branch does is the terms "law" and "regulation". In effect however they are exactly the same. The ONLY power that ANY agency under the Executive Branch should have is the power to enforce (execute) the law.

 

Correct, except Chevron allows Executive Agencies to legislate without Congressional authority.

The perfect example is Biden's move to ban internal combustion engines through the EPA without any express or even considered authority to do so from the Clean Air Act.

Again, the Legislature legislates, the Executive executes.