6 ms·
They are currently fighting about Chevron deference, which would functionally be a way for the courts to squash agency independence. Clarence Thomas has this b
by truffdog 5y ago
They are currently fighting about Chevron deference, which would functionally be a way for the courts to squash agency independence.
Clarence Thomas has this bit where he says "you guys are doing all these crazy contortions to do stare decisis on these old New Deal decisions that enable the modern administrative state, but the real answer is that they were never constitutional to begin with and should be reversed." This would clearly be a giant disaster, but I think his argument is probably correct.
We don't really do constitutional amendments any more though, so I'm not sure if there are any answers other than court packing to ensure continuous Constitutional Calvinball.
- vmception 5y agoYeah, I reached the same conclusion myself, a long time ago. Most of the New Deal was gutted by the courts in the 1930s and 1940s and everything else that remains from it just has never been challenged, mostly from a lack of inspiration, lack of awareness, or distraction by other causes. I would be skeptical of anything we’ve just assumed is American that came about from the New Deal. I’ve got a couple full agencies in my crosshairs, and I’m excited about that. Sure, its going to be a disaster, and I’m empathic about people losing other civil rights they have gotten used to that this court is going to re-evaluate, but I’m glad I can leave and that my particular causes will give me the openings I want.
- comex 5y agoYou can leave what? What causes?
- vmception 5y agoleave the country while still using changes that might be inconvenient for others
- vore 5y agoClearly not all that empathic if you're on here bragging about how great it is that you can simply opt to not lose your civil rights.
- vmception 5y agoPlay the cards you're dealt. I don't have influence on the courts and neither do the people protesting on its doorstep.