7 ms·
It seems likely to me the ruling took this long because John Roberts wanted to get a more unanimous ruling. Additionally, the law in this case isn’t ill define
by mastax 7mo ago
It seems likely to me the ruling took this long because John Roberts wanted to get a more unanimous ruling.
Additionally, the law in this case isn’t ill defined whatsoever. Alito, Thomas, and to a lesser extent Kavanaugh are just partisan hacks. For many years I wanted to believe they had a consistent and defensible legal viewpoint, even if I thought it was misguided. However the past six years have destroyed that notion. They’re barely even trying to justify themselves in most of these rulings; and via the shadow docket frequently deny us even that barest explanation.
- blackjack_ 7mo agoAlito is one of the original proponents of the unitary executive theory (way before he was a Supreme Court justice). Everything he does should be looked at as an attempt to impose said theory and destroy America.
- anthonypasq 7mo agoits truly bizarre that anyone with this view could get approved by congress. its so antithetical to the entire american political system. just blows my mind how spineless congress as an institution has been for decades.
- judahmeek 7mo agoRepealing the 17th amendment will once again incentivize the Senate to choose Supreme Court justices who seek to strengthen federalism & decentralize power
- mastax 7mo agoI don't think that is compatible with his ruling in Biden v. Nebraska, nor some others during Biden's term.
- bradleyjg 7mo agoKavanaugh clearly isn’t in the same bucket. His votes go either way. I don’t recall seeing a single decision this administration where either Alito or Thomas wrote against a White House position. Not just in case opinions but even in an order. I don’t think we’ve seen a justice act as a stalking horse for the president in this way since Fortas.
- zeroonetwothree 7mo agoWeren’t Sotomator and Jackson the same with Biden? Kagan is much more principled.
- bradleyjg 7mo agoIn major case, sure. But every last emergency petition? I don’t think so.
- bonsai_spool 7mo ago> Weren’t Sotomator and Jackson the same with Biden? Kagan is much more principled Very respectfully, there is no comparison between Trump and Biden in this respect. Indeed, the court adopted a new legal concept, the Major Questions Doctrine, to limit Biden continuing the Trump student loan forbearance.
- twoodfin 7mo agoThe Major Questions Doctrine has been a thing for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine
- bonsai_spool 7mo ago> The Major Questions Doctrine has been a thing for decades: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine I've read the Wikipedia page before and also reviewed it before posting, but thanks for your insightful analysis. Care to share when it was used in the majority before the current Roberts court?
- tyre 7mo agoFDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. is an example of the same principle without the name (afaik it wasn’t named that until later.) Basically the FDA tried to use its powers to regulate drugs and devices to regulate nicotine (drug) via cigarettes (device.) The conservatives on the court said, in effect, “look obviously congress didn’t intend to include cigarettes as a medical device, come on.” Then Congress passed a specific law allowing the FDA to regulate cigarettes. This is how it should work. If congress means something that’s a stretch, they should say so specifically.
- buzzerbetrayed 7mo ago[flagged]
- bluedays 7mo agoWhy are conservatives always so angry?
- Refreeze5224 7mo agoConstant fear.
- geoka9 7mo agoWhy do angry people tend to lean conservative?
- jonathanstrange 7mo agoWhat liberal justices do has no bearing on OP's argument at all. You must be able to recognize the fallacy?
- hinkley 7mo agoThomas isn’t a hack, he’s a shill. And he’s not even trying to be subtle about it. He’s somebody’s bitch and he literally drives around in the toys they bought for him as compensation. If any justice deserves to be impeached it’s him. I can’t believe they approved him in the first place. Anita Hill sends her regards.
- MaysonL 7mo agoI remember being shocked, albeit not surprised, when I read that he had quite a lot of contact with Ron de Santis. https://americanoversight.org/email-suggests-that-supreme-court-justice-thomas-had-been-in-regular-contact-with-florida-gov-desantis/ https://americanoversight.org/email-suggests-that-supreme-co...
- dyauspitr 7mo agoBut the toys are so cheap. It can’t possibly be just a matter of the money, there has to be some blackmail involved. Either that or he was always self hating.
- evan_ 7mo agoWhy would there need to be bribery or blackmail involved? He's ideologically aligned with the goals of the republican party. His patrons lavish him with gifts because they don't want him to retire, not because they want a specific ruling.
- hinkley 7mo agoIt’s the same thing. Keep doing exactly what we want you to do, or the money goes to someone who will. Which is also a message to the rest.
- hinkley 7mo agoHe was gifted a motor coach worth $80,000, and that’s just one of the bigger things he can’t launder.
- Rapzid 7mo ago
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- RetpolineDrama 7mo ago[flagged]
- tyre 7mo agoIt’s not an absurd scenario. The law was written specifically to allow blocking imports from a country. The nuance is that nothing Congress passed granted to right to tax. Additionally, they did grant the power to partially block imports. Nothing says you have to enact “no imports from Japan” vs. “no imports of networking equipment from Lichtenstein.”
- RetpolineDrama 7mo ago>The law was written specifically to allow blocking imports from a country. The precise wording is regulate. The idea that "regulate" means you can turn it on or off with no in-between is beyond parody. Absurd. Hilarious. Farcical. That said the headline is misleading and should be renamed, nothing is changing from this ruling.
- Starman_Jones 7mo agoThe precise wording is "investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit..."
- mexicocitinluez 7mo ago> discussion about the nuances of this ruling are happening on X I'm sure they are lol.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- DiogenesKynikos 7mo agoIf you listen to the oral arguments, this issue was discussed at length. There are two reasons for this distinction: 1. That's what congress decided. They get to determine tariffs, not the president. If the president doesn't like the law congress passed, he doesn't get to just ignore it. 2. Congress is very jealous of the right to tax and spend. They do not want to hand over this power to the president. Tariffs are taxes. If the president can just impose whatever tariffs he wants, he can raise revenue without asking congress for permission. That would grant the president enormous power to go around congress. Banning imports from a country does not bring in revenue for the president, so it doesn't pose the same risk to congress' power. Trump has been trying to create a situation in which he can both raise revenue (through tariffs) and spend it however he wants (e.g., through DOGE's arbitrary changes to government spending) without ever asking congress. If he succeeds, the balance of power will be completely destroyed. The president will rule alone.
- pdpi 7mo ago> For many years I wanted to believe they had a consistent and defensible legal viewpoint, even if I thought it was misguided. Watching from across the Atlantic, I was always fascinated by Scalia's opinions (especially his dissents). I usually vehemently disagreed with him on principle (and I do believe his opinions were principled), but I often found myself conceding to his points, from a "what is and what should be are different things" angle.
- Nicook 7mo agoScalia wrote some really interesting opinions for sure. Feel like the arguments are only going to get worse :(
- tialaramex 7mo agoBecause in practice the US Supreme Court is a partisan body, the United States is deprived of the potential for excellent jurists you'd expect with a population of hundreds of millions and some of the world's best law schools. Only a subset of your best will exhibit the desired partisan skew. Despite the larger population and improved access, my guess is that the quality of Supreme Court Justices today is probably worse than in 1927 when it decided Buck v Bell (which says it's fine for states to have a policy where they sterilize "unfit" citizens, straight up Eugenics)
- 0xDEAFBEAD 7mo agoHow would you suggest selecting jurists in a way that doesn't introduce partisan incentives?
- tialaramex 7mo agoGiven that the current system maximises partisan bias, it's actually hard to do worse. Ideally you'd want to reform this hierarchically, but supposing we can only fix that final court, you want say a committee consisting of roughly a couple of academics who've taught this stuff, a couple of real on-the-ground attorneys who've argued before this court, a couple of retired judges from this court (if it had age limits, but today it does not) or the courts below it who've done this job, and five otherwise unconnected citizens (no specific business before any court now or expected) chosen at random the way most countries pick their juries. That committee is to deliver a list of several people best qualified to fill any vacancies on the court which arise before the next committee does the same, if such a vacancy arises you just go down the list.
- jasondigitized 7mo agoWhen all of your decisions can be predetermined without even knowing the context of the matter you are surely a hack. It goes like this.....'Does this matter benefit Trump, corporations, rich people or evangelicals?'. Yes? Alito and Thomas will argue its lawful. Every single time.
- Andrex 7mo agoThe dissent seems to be "Ignoring whether or not the President acted lawfully, it would sure create an awful big mess if we undid it. And he's gonna try again anyways, and maybe even succeed in that future attempt, creating an even bigger mess. So for these reasons, it shouldn't be undone." Curious if others have different readings.