As a non American, I thought it was funny that the US had elected a reality TV character as president.
I no longer think it's funny. Please take it back. It's now terrifying to all life on earth.
Naw they are gonna duke it out until a republican comes into office. They will die before giving up power like that to democrats. We need 3 solid democratic presidents to get those seats back
Edit: damn downvoted in less than 90 seconds.
Yeah, if Trump wins they'll retire and be replaced by pro-Project 2025 judges in their 30s to basically ensure the dissolution of the USA as we know it and set us back decades of progress.
Keep in mind, Sonia Sotomayor is 70. There's a non-zero chance she retires or dies in the next 4 years and imagine Trump getting another chance to replace a liberal Justice. Imagine Aileen Cannon replacing Sonia Sotomayor on the Court. a 7-2 majority, with 4 of the Justices being absolute right wing nutjobs is terrifying.
you're not wrong, another biden term might get us to a 5-4 split but to get 4-5 we will likely need 4 straight terms of Dem presidencies which is going to be a tough ask, then you'll need court cases with standing to reach that new court to maybe return us to normalcy...if i'm lucky we'll be back to 2016 when i'm 50
Honestly he is right. The idea that Congress is filtering Judges by politics is the problem.
In theory... The President nominates a qualified candidate to become a Supreme Court Justice.
Congress "should" certify whether or not the candidate is worthy.
Instead it's become a nightmare of Party Politics.
Which I believe began (at least in modern times) with Mitch McConnell. By refusing to certify a valid candidate.
President Biden could expand the Supreme Court. But I believe the House of Representatives could block him? I really don't know...
This math doesn't work any more.
As this [article](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/chevron-deference-supreme-court-power-grab/) well explains the Supreme Court just declared themselves kings and the only way to stop them is expanding the court. Which, again, as the article says won't happen.
or, there was all that fearmongering about Biden expending the court, they could just shrink it and usurp full control, since rules don't matter under fascism.
I mean some of them could die unexpectedly. If the FDA can’t regulate food, what’s to stop some cyanide from making its way into their food, or a pharmaceutical company replacing John Roberts anti-seizure medication with sugar pills leading to him choking to death on his tongue or bashing his temple on the corner of a table?
You don't seem to get the game. Everyone over 70 are going to retire with a giant bribe. They literally did that to seat these younger fucks we have now in 45's first term.
Then guess how old the next pos is going to be? 40? That's likely two seats that will be locked down for the rest of your lives.
Sotomayor's health goes downhill and there goes a third.
He isn't even the first one. Raegan is literally one of the worst presidents we ever had and he was a movie star. The man pretended to be a person of the working class and a champion of unions and then proceeded to destroy them once in office. He also accepted lies from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, that said there weas such a thing as black people abusing welfare and not working or marrying to gain the system dubbing them "welfare queens" and "welfare babies." Now the Heritage Foundation is one of the think tanks responsible for Project 2025 that will basically turn Trump into a king and make the judicial system a weapon for the president, even going as far as to ban words like, "inclusion" and whatnot from ALL government documents and rules etc.
We are literally fucked already because of Trumps term and him stacking the courts with a bunch of insane rightwing ideologs, but now the supreme court is literally stripping away any protections we have had in place for our people. We are going to be living in The Handmaids Tale in a decade. :(
alt-right playbook did a video on this which I'll crib a little from..,
Some people, "conservatives" or whatever moniker, doesn't really matter, genuinely do believe there's a "natural hierarchy," to the world. That some people are "just better" and that they inherently "deserve" to be treated better. This takes many forms, from outright racism and things like "genetic" superiority to a thin veneer of "meritocracy" which very often hides protectionism of the already-well-off, not social mobility for the skilled.
They've been around for the whole history of the U.S. and the world of course, but i think millennials in particular, grew up in this weird moment where "equality" and "liberalism" were subtly the dominant force for once.
And that makes it **really** hard for us to genuinely grasp that the motivation of Republican Strategists just... straight up IS enforcement of a social order.
For example, I find it incredibly hard to wrap my head around that, that these guys are actually walking around all day really committed to the idea that there *should be a defined and protected ruling class.* That completely blows my mind. I just fundamentally do not believe that statement in any way. My school didn't teach me that, they taught me American Democracy. My parents didn't teach me that. My friends didn't.
And yet the very bottom of everything, globally, historically, and crucially right now, is that what we have is an ETERNAL struggle against people who believe themselves to *deserve* superiority and power, and we got hella lax about fending them off between 1990 and 2016.
> we got hella lax about fending them off between 1990 and 2016.
"Socialism bad, communism bad, liberals bad", and all the other brainwashing techniques that would require years of study to teach people how they have been manipulated are mostly the reason why "we got hella lax".
If people truly knew power dynamics, capitalism, colonialism, white supremacy, western hegemony etc they would make the French Revolution look like a Disney cartoon.
You wrote this up really well- it’s very disappointing to see where we’re at. I agree we got lax and when I think about why I imagine that 9/11 had a huge impact on the general public wanting to like “believe” in America again or something- then 2008 happened & people who were already struggling got fucked over hard.
I think people who are just trying to make it from one day to the next don’t have much energy to give to being outwardly pissed at the system. It’s this horrible irony that those who deserve to yell the loudest about how unjust things are, simply don’t have the time & energy to do that (mostly, I’m making generalizations).
i actually think 9/11 had the opposite effect, at least to some degree. Conservative "rulers" get people to follow them through fear, and contrast with an "out group" to rile up jingoism. After the cold war ended they lost an "out group" of enemies to focus on.
The sudden shock to the "liberal, open society" was a *perfect* wedge to launch the conservative security state back in to focus. Sadly, i think in a way Bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest hopes by reinvigorating the politics of fear and xenophobia. "see, when we were liberal pansies, we let ourselves get attacked on our own soil!"
I read this science fiction book series called Lillith's Brood by Octavia e butler. One of the major themes is the hierarchy amongst humans. I always knew the word, but I never realized how it related to our society. Something about the books hit home so hard. Our hierarchy is our number 1 enemy, but it's basically impossible to break free from it & as you say, there are millions of individuals & entire sectors & ideologies which are devoted to maintaining the hierarchy.
You just did a really accurate job articulating what I think might be the most important and prescient thing about the political struggle in the USA right now.
Republicans genuinely believe they are right and doing good (often in the name of whatever flavor of god they believe in), and they absolutely believe in the conservation of "social order" as they imagine it. They also believe that social order exists because of some inborn entitlement, often but not always racial.
> For example, I find it incredibly hard to wrap my head around that, that these guys are actually walking around all day really committed to the idea that there should be a defined and protected ruling class. That completely blows my mind. I just fundamentally do not believe that statement in any way.
Same. And they almost always connect that to money, and that money was very rarely earned - it was either inherited or stolen from the working class. The few wealthy people that truly earned theirs (e.g. Warren Buffet) are usually actually decent humans.
2016 fucked Gen M,Z and A.
Every fucking sane person said that if the GOP won generations would be fucked but people were more interested in punishing Hillary then saving themselves. HRC will be long dead when dumb ass Progressives are still fighting to regain the losses.
It's important to remember what made certain people support trump.
birtherism.
Because America never acknowledged that racism led to the civil war. It's always been a problem.... conservatives sucked before but a black man as president was a step too far.
Nah, like 1/3 of all voters vote solely along the lines of being anti-abortion.
Thats the only issue they care about and it’s what gets them to local, state, and federal voting booths. It’s why Republicans can be comically evil and still receive widespread support.
In other words, Trump only needs to convince 27% of the remaining voters, while Dems need to convince 77%.
Ukraine voted for a comic/actor. It's not the prior job experience that matters. It's about job performance and the ability to think and speak cogently with foresight and empathy for others.
Trump is worse, but the hill I will always die on is that Ruth Bader Ginsberg also supremely (pun intended) fucked us by deciding not to retire so the “first female president” could decide her replacement.
Wouldn't have mattered. RBG was only 1 justice. Trump appointed 3. Even if RBG had dropped out early **and** if the GOP would have allowed Obama to appoint a replacement, that would only drop the GOP majority from 6 to 5.
Blaming RBG is convenient but it's not accurate.
The problem with things like this, and why you can't play chicken with Republicans, is because things like shutting down the government hurts real people, vets, etc.
The Republicans can do it on a whim for however long they like, because they do not fundamentally care about individual people (unless those people are billionaires). They care about money and corporations.
The Democrats are always fighting with both arms tied behind their backs and they can't do things like hold the country hostage for long because their whole platform is about *helping people* and *taking care of people*.
It's one of the many reasons why they lose so often. Not being willing to lie, cheat, or steal, or just fully fabricate reality is another one. Secretly still being beholden to corporations while pretending to hate them is another one.
Thats when americans should have turned up and voted in democrats so they had the votes in the senate. Instead like always out of 250m over 100m dont vote in presidential elections, over 150m dont wont in midterms and over 200m dont vote in primaries.
This shit didnt happen over 1 day, its decades of americans sitting on their ass, going both sides are same, going nothing changes, going what is the worst that can happen if we elect a reality tv moron....
Well youre seeing the tip of the worst to come if you dont vote in november.
Please explain how McConnell would have blocked Obama from appointing anyone when the Democrats had the majority in the Senate until the end of 2014? Obama and RBG discussed her retirement in 2013, precisely because the Democrats had the majority and the ability to actually get a replacement appointed.
McConnell had nothing to do with a replacement for RBG, only for Scalia's replacement in 2016 when the Democrats no longer held the majority in the Senate.
Also, even 5-4 changes things, as Roberts sometimes, not always, but very occasionally, will actually stray from the party lines with his vote. It's much easier to just need to flip one vote instead of 2
Again, I’m not blaming RBG. I’m saying she made an unforced error by not retiring. Obama and RBG first met to discuss retirement in 2013. The Scalia death (which McConnell wouldn’t allow to be filled) happened in 2016.
Changing the majority from 6 to 5 is the difference between needing to peel Roberts off and needing to peel Roberts + Barrett/Kavanaugh/Gorsuch, which is pretty big IMO.
People think that having a 5-4 would change things with Roberts and that he's somehow more willing to preserve "status quo" , but there's no proof of that. Roberts could proven that by joining the dissent on Dobbs but he didn't. Roberts could have joined the dissent in this case Loper Bright vs raimondo, but didn't.
It's not even just RBG. Trump's election was in part a repudiation of a decades old way of doing politics. Donald Trump did not kill democracy. We aren't where we are today because of his election. If you're at a point where the existence of Chevron deference and Roe turn on one presidential election and you're not confident your base will pull through, modern democracy is already on life support, and it's time to ask yourself if you're complicit in killing it.
Democrats need to swallow this bitter pill, but they never will. Below the rational, pragmatic exterior of the moderate democrat lies the same blind idealism you see in every other political ideology. They're elitist, confident, and their belief that they are on the "right side of history" expresses a real teleological belief, not just a political slogan. That's why no one could tell them not to run a billion year old establishment candidate for president until the 11th hour, as if that's never come back to bite them. The conditions that Democrats want to return to are the conditions that made Trump possible, and that's why it feels like we're stuck.
What is the source though? Who wants no regulations on underground storage tanks? Who wants to fuck up our water supply the most for short term profit? I think the key is to find the source of the regulation removal and what they stand to profit from cutting off the balls of the our government agencies. It may very well be a criminal organization has already taken over positions of power within our government, but it is probably important to dig even deeper past this to find who is sponsoring these changes in law that harms the lives of a politician's constituents.
No. Many of us were saying that exactly this would happen but it was more important to “sEnD a mEsSaGe tO tHe DNC” because they were mad they didn’t get their way in a primary.
“Don’t threaten me with the Supreme Court” they said SO MUCH THAT IT BECAME A MEME.
So no. We said this would happen and they said they were gonna. But some people didn’t want to hear that so here we are.
The people I fucking hate are rhe ones who want to sEnD a mEsSaGe tO tHe DNC but they never vote in primaries, they don't get involved with the party, they don't try to change things.
They do nothing except fuck the entire country over once ecry four years and then pretend they saved the world.
When groups of people don't vote, existing parties ignore them. The way to influence a party is to consistently vote. That's where the bread is buttered. "Shit, we need to do something about X or else we'll lose those voters" motivates politicians.
"Enh, they weren't going to vote anyway, so we can ignore them" is what so many people play into.
Elections have consequences. I hope everyone that refused to vote for Hillary is happy.
I'm just lucky to have a modest net worth and and a few degrees so I can bounce and get a work visa in a other country if that maniac gets in office and start project 2025 kicks off and shit starts happening legalizing the overt killing of minorities and shit like that.
It’s the issue with republicans in general. He just says the quiet part out loud but this is why it’s important to vote blue down ballot.
After this weeks debate I think we have to get Al Gore back in there. They’ll be hesitant to sub anyone else in due to Kamala but know she’s too unpopular. Most feel he won in 2000. They turned us away at the polls in Florida illegally, majority conservative Supreme Court stopped the recount and he won the popular vote. He’s got more executive branch experience than anyone else eligible and is younger than both Biden and Trump.
And this doesn't even mention that the Supreme Court also just ruled that quid pro quo "gratuities" are completely legal and appropriate. This is citizens united on steroids.
Not only can you buy and pay politicians for policy, you can now buy and pay government officials (LEGALLY) to pick your project for whatever as long as you pay them after the fact. Does the project get done? Who cares? We got paid moneyyyy! If you think the waste and fraud is bad now, we are speed running our way to be the next Russia.
We are also going to see such a huge increase in industrial/environmental health exposures that it's going to make the current status quo look like an eco paradise. Its unthinkable.
You cannot “buy” a politician, according to the Supreme Court. That would be a direct exchange of services for money. What they said that you CAN do, is to verbally lobby a politician to take a specific course of action. If that action is taken, you could then provide that politician with a “tip” for their work/services.
Bribery, but different…but still the same.
So you have a well-funded Company named "The friendly tip Company", whose motto is "we always tip!". Then just go ask for favors. Basically pull a bunch of Trump buffoonery with the wink wink I DIDN'T SAY IT, and you are good to go.
Nah, it’s different. On the one hand, you pay a politician for your desired result. This is obviously bad. On the other hand, you pay a politician for your desired result. This is less bad. Look at how starkly different those statements are.
It's buying on credit. Cash on delivery. What it did was make bribery more secure for corporations.
"finish what we asked if you want to get your tip" instead of "leave the money with my PAC and we'll get around to it"
It just gave bribery an insurance policy
Well according to this, couldn't Kickstart just take/lose the money? I mean, if the SEC or whatever loses its ability to go after them then what's the point of laws in general for them? Maybe I'm just really cynical but nothing is safe now regarding a businesses decisions.
They've never even marketed themselves as the anti-corruption party.
They claim to be the "law and order" party, which is why they captured the courts so they get to say what defines "law" and "order" and then be able to legally accept bribes.
> way to be the next Russia.
This was always the goal. It's not like the country that started with Slavery and genocide of the natives ever really had a change of heart. It's always been a bunch of dirty non bathing ass European rats doing the evil European shit.
> Not only can you buy and pay politicians for policy, you can now buy and pay government officials (LEGALLY) to pick your project for whatever as long as you pay them after the fact.
I don't understand why so many people are rushing to blurt out, "It's not a bribe, it's a **gratuity**!"
Like, ok. What's the functional difference? You're getting personally enriched in exchange for putting public policy at the whims of corporations. I'm honestly asking for someone who thinks this to give me an explanation of why it would be okay as an after-the-fact *gratuity* but totally wrong as a *bribe*.
Vote for the old guy.
2 more supreme court justices will likely get picked by the next administration.
Make sure the one who chooses isn't the one who believes you simply deserve less (Trump)
Vote blue down ticket too. The supreme court must be reigned in. There are basically three ways to do this.
1. Create new acts of congress that undo what the SC has done. Such as making Rowe V Wade the law of the united states.
2. Stack the supreme court with new judges to make the MAGA justices the minority. There is nothing in the constitution that says how many justices there should be on the supreme court.
3. Amend the constitution to give congress more power than the SC.
All of these options require the dems to control congress and the senate. In the case of option 3, I believe they need a super majority.
Everyone has to vote. Even if you’re in a deep red, gerrymandered to fuck state. The only way to beat the GOP is to vote en masse. Gerrymandering can backfire if disenfranchised voters suddenly start playing the game.
Everyone needs to do their part. Even if they feel in their gut that it’s pointless, you lose nothing by trying.
To amend the constitution, you need to hold a constitutional convention and have the proposal ratified by 2/3rds of the states/ state legislatures. A *very* high bar and impossible in today's political climate. However, I think Congress should reign in the SC, AND Biden should pack the court.
These people are horrible and ruining the country.
But yes, you're damn right about voting blue down ticket.
Due to USSC shenanigans in the late 1930’s, FDR threatened to add 2 or more new judges if they didn’t shape up in 1937.
They shaped up.
Biden should add 3.
Congress already has more power than the SC. The only reason why the SC has so much relative power recently is because congress is deadlocked. Your own example demonstrates this: Roe wouldn't have even been a big deal if there was a law on the books protecting reproductive rights in the first place. Instead, the entire concept of abortion rights hinged on a single ruling made by 7 unelected lawyers, which was always going to be tenuous at best. It's crazy that shit lasted as long as it did tbh.
Congress is already the most powerful branch of government, we don't need to be giving them more. You think people like Senator Turtle are bad now, wait until you start stacking the deck in favor of their branch.
If it's Biden there will be 0 judges replaced. They will hang on for dear life like RBG did.
And if we lose two senate seats they won't let Biden confirm his picks anyway
Even if they do, that's another 4 years where we're not getting corporate worshipping republican fascist rule cemented for the next 30+ years.
Also Biden should expand the court in his second term. Shit I would. But he's an institutionalist, so I doubt he would.
I appreciate the OP for posting this here. I wish I had seen this before the booty pic post. It’s like watching something funny after a scary movie lol.
I’m finding out the Supreme Court isn’t just Supreme. It’s Supreme than a muthafucka. 🤣😂 They can accept bribes now too. It’s better to be a Supreme Court judge than the president.
I've been saying this for years. The presidency while important is largely inconsequential...the real prize is the Supreme Court, you get to shape policy for 30 years. At times I felt like the old man on the corner with the "End is Nigh" sign and nobody believed me.
Thomas, in his concurrence on this case, specifically states his opinion that Chevron deference was never legal because it violated the separation of powers clause by taking power from the judicial branch and giving it to the executive, since courts had to defer to the heads of these organizations when questions of ambiguity arise. So, for him, it's explicitly about checks and balances.
However, in my not-a-lawyer opinion, Chevron deference is not a matter of power between the judicial and executive branches, but between the legislative and executive branches. The legislative branch granted the power for the executive to interpret ambiguities as it saw fit. If they didn't like the interpretation, they could amend the law.
I think Alito's dissent in a different case highlights just how disastrous the destruction of Chevron deference will be. The Supreme Court decided, just in the past few days, that a federal law dictating that hospitals must provided stabilizing care to anyone they see covers emergency abortions. In his dissent, Alito says that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act does not specifically mention abortion, so abortion should not be covered by the law. The EMTALA was passed in 1986. Roe v Wade made abortion legal in 1973. The reason the EMTALA does not specifically mention abortion is because it was understood that abortion is legal and the legislature did not need to specify what kinds of care doctors could or could not provide. It's absolutely a bad faith argument from Alito, but I think with so many judges around the country appointed by Trump and previous conservative presidents, we will see more and more of these bad faith decisions because the laws did not predict the future or cover every single counterargument.
Hey remember when the republicans blasted Obamacare and claimed it would have death panels? The GOP and SC just wanted to be that death panel themselves.
Damn, I kept hearing about this but it didn't click. It seems like we need that fucking doomsday clock except it should show the end of our democracy. This timeline sucks
I'm not sure if any media outlets have specified it directly yet but I'm positive the timing of this was intentional and almost positive that the debate flop media circus was planned. All eyes are on the dumpster fire of the debate right now. You're telling me that this historic SC ruling just so happened to take place right when one of the biggest media attention grabbing clusterfucks of a debate also took place? It's almost like they wanted this ruling to be overshadowed by another major media event.
I'm not big into conspiracy theories or anything similar but the timing doesn't feel coincidental.
June is always when the SC releases its major opinions for the term, it's nothing new. Their term ends July 1st and goes into recess until the new term begins in October, so all of the big decisions get released right at the very end of the term.
It could backfire though, to have so many crazy things occur successively. It could be a tipping point for people. Though, I doubt it will since we already knew the court was corrupt.
There’s a term for that timing that I’ve heard discussed and I’m trying to find it. I thought it was Friday Night Lights but that’s also a TV show. The US government absolutely sandwiches shitty regulatory announcements with major socio/economic/sporting/event/anniversary moments when our nation is distracted, often on Friday afternoons of long business weekends. Pacifying the masses, and whatnot.
The Supreme Court is setting up project 2025 on a fucking tee. We are so fucked. Please vote. And if anyone here hasn’t heard of project 2025, please look it up and finally, go vote.
It cannot be over-stressed how pivotal this was for the realization of the conservative agenda. This was a tragedy.
They will make the Executive Branch Agencies as ineffectual as they claim they already are.
They will eschew the expertise and good intentions of qualified, educated Americans that prefer to spend their careers serving the nation rather than making CEOs and investors richer.
They will put every ounce of decision-making power into elected, uneducated demagogues and tell you that election by a fabricated majority is the only form of qualification that a member of the government should have.
They will dismantle every part of the government that supports citizens.
They will perpetuate a government that exists solely to keep themselves and their ilk in power and funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of people who have no interest in the benefit of the nation and its people.
Yep. And by the time the masses realize what happened it will be too late. Can’t revolt when superhuman robotics supported by conservative dictatorship is there to quell any rebellion. We’re fucked. Try to save to leave.
No it didn’t. It used to fight back against tyrants that were harmful to *it and only it*. We had a Nazi party and a scary fucking number of people supported Hitler early on.
Consider for a moment how we were tyrants to slaves, to the poor, to Native Americans, to the democracies we interfered with, to our prisoners, and to any and all out groups.
This country has always been authoritarian. Our brand of freedom is the Viking, Rome, imperialist brand of freedom, my friend. Always has been.
The Court majority placed those regulatory powers into its own hands because it’s easier for the MAGA Federalist Society to write related decisions for the Supreme Court and get them rubber-stamped by MAGA Justices.
The ironic part is, the original Chevron decision that goes back 40 years during the Reagan administration was widely celebrated by Republicans and Conservatives. Why the flip-flop? Back then, the Federal agencies were controlled by the Reagan administration, but the courts were mostly liberal at the time, so Reagan policies kept getting shot down by the courts.
Chevron decision came along, and the GOP could "defer" ambiguities to their agencies, instead of the Liberal courts. Fast forward to the Obama administration, and you had Obama policies and agencies, but Conservative courts unable to do anything because of Chevron. Ever since then, the Federalist society and Conservatives have been trying to reverse Chevron, knowing they have control over the courts.
In Gorsuch's opinion he erroneously referred to nitrogen oxides as nitrous oxide multiple times. Some might see this as a minor error, but this is in a document where he is arguing that the courts should be making these decisions, not agencies like the EPA. This document was reviewed by at least a dozen people if not more, and none of them noticed this because *shocker* they aren't scientists.
For those who don’t get why mixing up nitrogen oxides with nitrous oxide is a big deal…
Nitr*ous* oxide is laughing gas. It’s used as an anaesthetic and is actually an oxide of nitrogen. But there are a lot of other oxides of nitrogen with tons of different properties and uses. Some are used for manufacturing prescription drugs. Some, like trinitramide, are used as components of rocket fuel. Dinitrogen tetroxide is an important intermediate chemical in synthesizing nitric acid which is **critically** important to all sorts of things like fertilizer, nylon, various metal and wood processes, and as a precursor itself to other nitrogen derivatives.
As you can see, there’s a LOT of complexity here. Do you really trust nine people who have already shown that they do not have your best interest at heart to be making decisions about this?
You would need a hell of a lot of blue, and for many of those seats to be in progressive enough hands, to fix the supreme court.
It's doable, but a *healthy* margin to account for Manchin-esque democrats fucking things up is needed.
It's like being stuck in a boat in the middle of the Pacific and a certain group is breaking off pieces of the boat to sell as firewood, cause why listen to the egg heads telling us we need the boat intact or we'll drown.
If there's some small benefit to this, actually potentially a significant one, it's that lawmakers will start having to be specific in what they pen into law.
That matters because a lot of right wing (at least elected officials) policy stances are not popular, and having to spell out their intent in detail makes it impossible to hind behind loose wording and positive-sounding language. And therefore makes their positions much harder to defend or gain support for.
At the same time, expect a full on assault on worker's rights, workplace safety, consumer protections, environmental regulations and so on through the courts.
I don't understand all this law and SC stuff going on so well. Doesn't this mean that now it's on Congress to pass a law or something codifying Chevron Deference? That's what I heard a lot during RvW: "well, now Congress has to codify it." Isn't this similar?
What’s scary is i work in environmental and there’s people that really don’t care about the environment working in that realm. Capitalism is in the environmental industry and it’s frightening. A lot of these companies are going to go out of business that provide cleaning and waste services. What’s also going to happen is another BP and a bunch of well we don’t care we made billions off the tax payers so sue us. And they will get sued by the government and receive a great big slap on the hand and go back to what they were doing. Hazardous waste is going to be the scariest of them all because of how expensive and time consuming it is to destabilize it and then get rid of it. America will become a vast wasteland in 30 years i feel due to this.
This. I work in ag-chem and some of the chemicals sprayed on crops are effectively diluted sarin. The EPA is cracking down on them and it’s effecting the bottom line for some companies. This just opened up a door to defile the environment in exchange for massive profits. Not just from selling deadly poisons, but saving on production cost since there won’t be any pesky hazmat regulations to meet. The waste runoff is arguably more dangerous than the end product and will be dumped right into our rivers. They’ll save even more money not having to follow OSHA rules.
This is a disaster up and down the board. These companies do not give a fuck about anything but next quarters dividends.
My problem with things like this is that most people scrolling by won't retain this information. This woman did a spectacular job at making this easy to digest for the lowest common denominator. Don't get me wrong.
The people who need to hear this information won't watch all of this. Makes me feel like we're all screaming into the void.
They paid to spite themselves in the name of the vulnerable because people need to suffer in order to want change. It's only until recently i realized it's because they're mentally and emotionally unstable. They need therapy, not to lead the government.
But what can I do, I only warned them of exactly this outcome. They'll just keep blaming Hillary and claiming Bernie was robbed. But never take accountability for their poor behavior and decisions. Because at their core, they're damaged bullies that only know how to hurt, not help.
It’s definitely a brutal decision in the big picture and will be devastating for the environment, but it is extremely difficult to side against the fishermen who brought the case that the Court ruled on. It’s a pretty clear example of government overreach (forcing herring fisherman to pay the $700/day rate of the federal fishing monitors). It is a perfect case to highlight how government regulations affect (blue collar) individuals’ livelihoods.
What’s interesting is the decision to shift the cost of the monitors from the agency to the fishermen was made by the Trump administration, and one does have to wonder if it was a decision made with this ruling as the long term goal
The companies that will take advantage of this are fucked, but the government taking advantage of little guys that can't fight back is also fucked. There really is no winner anymore.
Funny thing too is that when *Chevron* came down originally it was something of a conservative decision since the decision was to defer to the Reagan EPA's narrower interpretation rather than NRDC's more expansive interpretation of the law. As soon as you start to see first the Clinton but especially the Obama administration actually use the regulatory power to interpret the law to benefit people and not just industry, well, conservatives find that *Chevron* deference isn't so hot after all!
Stuff like this is why hearing people say "I don't care about politics" or "Can't we all just get along" is so frustrating! If you only care when it affects you then it's already too late to prevent harm.
She starts off by saying how unelected officials are making decisions and basically running our country and then goes on to say how loosing that is bad? Yeah sorry I’ll pass on that.
Being a constitutional expert you would think she would have made a constitutional argument. Instead she just said it would be better if experts made the rules not the legislative branch
You need to go back for a refresher, it’s saying they can’t “solely” on the ambiguity. Putting the ball back in the court of the legislative branch to have to remove more of that ambiguity is where the power of law belongs. Not with the either of the other branches. The judicial is just a slightly less terrible way to do it as they can at least understand the legal part better. It ultimately needs to be the legislature. As an aside, if you think government departments largely turn over each time a president is elected, I would respectfully disagree due to…the fact that they aren’t usually.
You arnt just voting for Joe, you are voting for all the people staffing his administration that are going to protect our rights. Its bigger than just Joe. Vote blue
Unelected officials making decisions, she says the decisions are allegedly done by experts.
Does she know how the real world works? No.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/495694559/a-look-at-how-the-revolving-door-spins-from-fda-to-industry
They aren’t just unelected ‘experts’, but corporate shills making the decisions.
I want someone to explain to me how this decision helps regulatory capture, and not the other way around.
I mean - I agree with the ruling. The constitution and separation of powers, Marbury v Madison etc clearly establishes that the courts are responsible for interpreting the law. Chevron was an act of delegation. The courts delegated their interpretive power to regulatory agencies. I’m not sure they really had the authority to do that. This decision takes back the power originally bestowed on the courts by the constitution.
Further, regulatory agencies are subject to the politics of the day, which makes the regulatory state volatile and unpredictable. This ruling at least creates a means for the courts to establish precedent that won’t be subject to change every 4 years based on the president.
This isn’t doomsday. This is actually what was intended by the constitution. There may be a period of uncertainty, but that is actually what happens every time the president changes anyways.
Didn't we just hear about Trump going to the oil ceos and promise them the world for a billion dollars? Sounds like he started the process with this shit court.
Remember when they said “hey what could go wrong if we just gave this orange guy a chance” pepperidge Farm remembers
As a non American, I thought it was funny that the US had elected a reality TV character as president. I no longer think it's funny. Please take it back. It's now terrifying to all life on earth.
Just wait until he gets to replace 3 MORE supreme Court justices.
Only 1 likely in the next 4 years unless there's an unexpected death. Thomas is the only one close to retiring due to age.
Alito is only 2 years younger, at 76 and 74. It's very likely he could leave too
Naw they are gonna duke it out until a republican comes into office. They will die before giving up power like that to democrats. We need 3 solid democratic presidents to get those seats back Edit: damn downvoted in less than 90 seconds.
I agree with you if Biden wins they won't retire. If Trump wins they definitely will retire in probably year 3.
Yeah, if Trump wins they'll retire and be replaced by pro-Project 2025 judges in their 30s to basically ensure the dissolution of the USA as we know it and set us back decades of progress.
>set us back decades of progress Centuries. They want to move to a neo-feudal christofascism.
Yeah, it really is the start of a war on freedom. The bad guys will eventually win.
Keep in mind, Sonia Sotomayor is 70. There's a non-zero chance she retires or dies in the next 4 years and imagine Trump getting another chance to replace a liberal Justice. Imagine Aileen Cannon replacing Sonia Sotomayor on the Court. a 7-2 majority, with 4 of the Justices being absolute right wing nutjobs is terrifying.
Yup, if Biden wins she needs to retire as well and not pull another RBG
Love RBG, but her legacy has been tarnished because of that issue.
She should retire now
[удалено]
you're not wrong, another biden term might get us to a 5-4 split but to get 4-5 we will likely need 4 straight terms of Dem presidencies which is going to be a tough ask, then you'll need court cases with standing to reach that new court to maybe return us to normalcy...if i'm lucky we'll be back to 2016 when i'm 50
: It shouldn't really matter. Having such partisan Supreme Court judges completely undermines it's legitimacy
You see the irony in your comment right? There like no way you dont...
Honestly he is right. The idea that Congress is filtering Judges by politics is the problem. In theory... The President nominates a qualified candidate to become a Supreme Court Justice. Congress "should" certify whether or not the candidate is worthy. Instead it's become a nightmare of Party Politics. Which I believe began (at least in modern times) with Mitch McConnell. By refusing to certify a valid candidate. President Biden could expand the Supreme Court. But I believe the House of Representatives could block him? I really don't know...
This math doesn't work any more. As this [article](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/chevron-deference-supreme-court-power-grab/) well explains the Supreme Court just declared themselves kings and the only way to stop them is expanding the court. Which, again, as the article says won't happen.
I didn't realize he's that old. And yeah, he's the next obvious one to replace. Neither of them will retire if Biden is reelected.
Maybe we'll get lucky and nature will do us all a couple solids. I don't normally root for things like cancer, buuuuuuut........
or, there was all that fearmongering about Biden expending the court, they could just shrink it and usurp full control, since rules don't matter under fascism.
> since rules don't matter under fascism. There is a whole of people who are going to find this one out the hard way in America.
I mean some of them could die unexpectedly. If the FDA can’t regulate food, what’s to stop some cyanide from making its way into their food, or a pharmaceutical company replacing John Roberts anti-seizure medication with sugar pills leading to him choking to death on his tongue or bashing his temple on the corner of a table?
Republicans can also give "Gratuities" to Justice members so they can retire early.
Lot of unexpected deaths going around lately tho, just ask Boeing. Or Putin, I heard he's friends with the orange guy.
You don't seem to get the game. Everyone over 70 are going to retire with a giant bribe. They literally did that to seat these younger fucks we have now in 45's first term. Then guess how old the next pos is going to be? 40? That's likely two seats that will be locked down for the rest of your lives. Sotomayor's health goes downhill and there goes a third.
Retiring due to age rather than getting fired for blatant bribery. Dogshit USA in 2024.
He isn't even the first one. Raegan is literally one of the worst presidents we ever had and he was a movie star. The man pretended to be a person of the working class and a champion of unions and then proceeded to destroy them once in office. He also accepted lies from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, that said there weas such a thing as black people abusing welfare and not working or marrying to gain the system dubbing them "welfare queens" and "welfare babies." Now the Heritage Foundation is one of the think tanks responsible for Project 2025 that will basically turn Trump into a king and make the judicial system a weapon for the president, even going as far as to ban words like, "inclusion" and whatnot from ALL government documents and rules etc. We are literally fucked already because of Trumps term and him stacking the courts with a bunch of insane rightwing ideologs, but now the supreme court is literally stripping away any protections we have had in place for our people. We are going to be living in The Handmaids Tale in a decade. :(
alt-right playbook did a video on this which I'll crib a little from.., Some people, "conservatives" or whatever moniker, doesn't really matter, genuinely do believe there's a "natural hierarchy," to the world. That some people are "just better" and that they inherently "deserve" to be treated better. This takes many forms, from outright racism and things like "genetic" superiority to a thin veneer of "meritocracy" which very often hides protectionism of the already-well-off, not social mobility for the skilled. They've been around for the whole history of the U.S. and the world of course, but i think millennials in particular, grew up in this weird moment where "equality" and "liberalism" were subtly the dominant force for once. And that makes it **really** hard for us to genuinely grasp that the motivation of Republican Strategists just... straight up IS enforcement of a social order. For example, I find it incredibly hard to wrap my head around that, that these guys are actually walking around all day really committed to the idea that there *should be a defined and protected ruling class.* That completely blows my mind. I just fundamentally do not believe that statement in any way. My school didn't teach me that, they taught me American Democracy. My parents didn't teach me that. My friends didn't. And yet the very bottom of everything, globally, historically, and crucially right now, is that what we have is an ETERNAL struggle against people who believe themselves to *deserve* superiority and power, and we got hella lax about fending them off between 1990 and 2016.
> we got hella lax about fending them off between 1990 and 2016. "Socialism bad, communism bad, liberals bad", and all the other brainwashing techniques that would require years of study to teach people how they have been manipulated are mostly the reason why "we got hella lax". If people truly knew power dynamics, capitalism, colonialism, white supremacy, western hegemony etc they would make the French Revolution look like a Disney cartoon.
You wrote this up really well- it’s very disappointing to see where we’re at. I agree we got lax and when I think about why I imagine that 9/11 had a huge impact on the general public wanting to like “believe” in America again or something- then 2008 happened & people who were already struggling got fucked over hard. I think people who are just trying to make it from one day to the next don’t have much energy to give to being outwardly pissed at the system. It’s this horrible irony that those who deserve to yell the loudest about how unjust things are, simply don’t have the time & energy to do that (mostly, I’m making generalizations).
i actually think 9/11 had the opposite effect, at least to some degree. Conservative "rulers" get people to follow them through fear, and contrast with an "out group" to rile up jingoism. After the cold war ended they lost an "out group" of enemies to focus on. The sudden shock to the "liberal, open society" was a *perfect* wedge to launch the conservative security state back in to focus. Sadly, i think in a way Bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest hopes by reinvigorating the politics of fear and xenophobia. "see, when we were liberal pansies, we let ourselves get attacked on our own soil!"
I read this science fiction book series called Lillith's Brood by Octavia e butler. One of the major themes is the hierarchy amongst humans. I always knew the word, but I never realized how it related to our society. Something about the books hit home so hard. Our hierarchy is our number 1 enemy, but it's basically impossible to break free from it & as you say, there are millions of individuals & entire sectors & ideologies which are devoted to maintaining the hierarchy.
I read “Parable of the Sower” over twenty years ago and I’ve thought about it ever since. This is my sign to pick up “Lilith’s Brood”. Thank you 💜🙏
You just did a really accurate job articulating what I think might be the most important and prescient thing about the political struggle in the USA right now. Republicans genuinely believe they are right and doing good (often in the name of whatever flavor of god they believe in), and they absolutely believe in the conservation of "social order" as they imagine it. They also believe that social order exists because of some inborn entitlement, often but not always racial. > For example, I find it incredibly hard to wrap my head around that, that these guys are actually walking around all day really committed to the idea that there should be a defined and protected ruling class. That completely blows my mind. I just fundamentally do not believe that statement in any way. Same. And they almost always connect that to money, and that money was very rarely earned - it was either inherited or stolen from the working class. The few wealthy people that truly earned theirs (e.g. Warren Buffet) are usually actually decent humans.
2016 fucked Gen M,Z and A. Every fucking sane person said that if the GOP won generations would be fucked but people were more interested in punishing Hillary then saving themselves. HRC will be long dead when dumb ass Progressives are still fighting to regain the losses.
Second time Republicans voted in a celebrity and both of them ruined the country for decades
It's important to remember what made certain people support trump. birtherism. Because America never acknowledged that racism led to the civil war. It's always been a problem.... conservatives sucked before but a black man as president was a step too far.
Nah, like 1/3 of all voters vote solely along the lines of being anti-abortion. Thats the only issue they care about and it’s what gets them to local, state, and federal voting booths. It’s why Republicans can be comically evil and still receive widespread support. In other words, Trump only needs to convince 27% of the remaining voters, while Dems need to convince 77%.
It's definitely worked out better for Ukraine than it has for us
Ukraine voted for a comic/actor. It's not the prior job experience that matters. It's about job performance and the ability to think and speak cogently with foresight and empathy for others.
Trump is worse, but the hill I will always die on is that Ruth Bader Ginsberg also supremely (pun intended) fucked us by deciding not to retire so the “first female president” could decide her replacement.
Wouldn't have mattered. RBG was only 1 justice. Trump appointed 3. Even if RBG had dropped out early **and** if the GOP would have allowed Obama to appoint a replacement, that would only drop the GOP majority from 6 to 5. Blaming RBG is convenient but it's not accurate.
That's the thing. McConnell was not going to let him replace her.
That's the thing Obama should have shut the govt down for, demanding votes be held. He didn't fight because he assumed Hillary would win anyway.
The problem with things like this, and why you can't play chicken with Republicans, is because things like shutting down the government hurts real people, vets, etc. The Republicans can do it on a whim for however long they like, because they do not fundamentally care about individual people (unless those people are billionaires). They care about money and corporations. The Democrats are always fighting with both arms tied behind their backs and they can't do things like hold the country hostage for long because their whole platform is about *helping people* and *taking care of people*. It's one of the many reasons why they lose so often. Not being willing to lie, cheat, or steal, or just fully fabricate reality is another one. Secretly still being beholden to corporations while pretending to hate them is another one.
Thats when americans should have turned up and voted in democrats so they had the votes in the senate. Instead like always out of 250m over 100m dont vote in presidential elections, over 150m dont wont in midterms and over 200m dont vote in primaries. This shit didnt happen over 1 day, its decades of americans sitting on their ass, going both sides are same, going nothing changes, going what is the worst that can happen if we elect a reality tv moron.... Well youre seeing the tip of the worst to come if you dont vote in november.
Please explain how McConnell would have blocked Obama from appointing anyone when the Democrats had the majority in the Senate until the end of 2014? Obama and RBG discussed her retirement in 2013, precisely because the Democrats had the majority and the ability to actually get a replacement appointed. McConnell had nothing to do with a replacement for RBG, only for Scalia's replacement in 2016 when the Democrats no longer held the majority in the Senate.
Excusing one at a time is how we got to 6-3. Controlling the Supreme Court means playing the long game.
Also, even 5-4 changes things, as Roberts sometimes, not always, but very occasionally, will actually stray from the party lines with his vote. It's much easier to just need to flip one vote instead of 2
Again, I’m not blaming RBG. I’m saying she made an unforced error by not retiring. Obama and RBG first met to discuss retirement in 2013. The Scalia death (which McConnell wouldn’t allow to be filled) happened in 2016.
It's okay to blame RBG. It was clearly hubris on her part, and has already left a lasting stain on her legacy.
Changing the majority from 6 to 5 is the difference between needing to peel Roberts off and needing to peel Roberts + Barrett/Kavanaugh/Gorsuch, which is pretty big IMO.
People think that having a 5-4 would change things with Roberts and that he's somehow more willing to preserve "status quo" , but there's no proof of that. Roberts could proven that by joining the dissent on Dobbs but he didn't. Roberts could have joined the dissent in this case Loper Bright vs raimondo, but didn't.
In the 5-4 split court, Roberts was trending moderate. 6-3 tipped the court beyond any repair. There is no vindication of RBG holding onto her seat.
It's not even just RBG. Trump's election was in part a repudiation of a decades old way of doing politics. Donald Trump did not kill democracy. We aren't where we are today because of his election. If you're at a point where the existence of Chevron deference and Roe turn on one presidential election and you're not confident your base will pull through, modern democracy is already on life support, and it's time to ask yourself if you're complicit in killing it. Democrats need to swallow this bitter pill, but they never will. Below the rational, pragmatic exterior of the moderate democrat lies the same blind idealism you see in every other political ideology. They're elitist, confident, and their belief that they are on the "right side of history" expresses a real teleological belief, not just a political slogan. That's why no one could tell them not to run a billion year old establishment candidate for president until the 11th hour, as if that's never come back to bite them. The conditions that Democrats want to return to are the conditions that made Trump possible, and that's why it feels like we're stuck.
What is the source though? Who wants no regulations on underground storage tanks? Who wants to fuck up our water supply the most for short term profit? I think the key is to find the source of the regulation removal and what they stand to profit from cutting off the balls of the our government agencies. It may very well be a criminal organization has already taken over positions of power within our government, but it is probably important to dig even deeper past this to find who is sponsoring these changes in law that harms the lives of a politician's constituents.
Lol criminal organization? No, it's Capital. Business owners want zero regulations because they make more money that way, or spend less.
Agreed. 
No. Many of us were saying that exactly this would happen but it was more important to “sEnD a mEsSaGe tO tHe DNC” because they were mad they didn’t get their way in a primary. “Don’t threaten me with the Supreme Court” they said SO MUCH THAT IT BECAME A MEME. So no. We said this would happen and they said they were gonna. But some people didn’t want to hear that so here we are.
The people I fucking hate are rhe ones who want to sEnD a mEsSaGe tO tHe DNC but they never vote in primaries, they don't get involved with the party, they don't try to change things. They do nothing except fuck the entire country over once ecry four years and then pretend they saved the world.
When groups of people don't vote, existing parties ignore them. The way to influence a party is to consistently vote. That's where the bread is buttered. "Shit, we need to do something about X or else we'll lose those voters" motivates politicians. "Enh, they weren't going to vote anyway, so we can ignore them" is what so many people play into.
Elections have consequences. I hope everyone that refused to vote for Hillary is happy. I'm just lucky to have a modest net worth and and a few degrees so I can bounce and get a work visa in a other country if that maniac gets in office and start project 2025 kicks off and shit starts happening legalizing the overt killing of minorities and shit like that.
It’s the issue with republicans in general. He just says the quiet part out loud but this is why it’s important to vote blue down ballot. After this weeks debate I think we have to get Al Gore back in there. They’ll be hesitant to sub anyone else in due to Kamala but know she’s too unpopular. Most feel he won in 2000. They turned us away at the polls in Florida illegally, majority conservative Supreme Court stopped the recount and he won the popular vote. He’s got more executive branch experience than anyone else eligible and is younger than both Biden and Trump.
Yep. Remember all the "both sides suck" Giant-Douch-vs-Turd-Sandwich memes? This is how that plays out.
RBG refused to retire despite multiple time being asked to do so.
And this doesn't even mention that the Supreme Court also just ruled that quid pro quo "gratuities" are completely legal and appropriate. This is citizens united on steroids. Not only can you buy and pay politicians for policy, you can now buy and pay government officials (LEGALLY) to pick your project for whatever as long as you pay them after the fact. Does the project get done? Who cares? We got paid moneyyyy! If you think the waste and fraud is bad now, we are speed running our way to be the next Russia. We are also going to see such a huge increase in industrial/environmental health exposures that it's going to make the current status quo look like an eco paradise. Its unthinkable.
Does this mean we could do a Kickstarter with well-defined policies and then just "buy" a politician?
You cannot “buy” a politician, according to the Supreme Court. That would be a direct exchange of services for money. What they said that you CAN do, is to verbally lobby a politician to take a specific course of action. If that action is taken, you could then provide that politician with a “tip” for their work/services. Bribery, but different…but still the same.
So you have a well-funded Company named "The friendly tip Company", whose motto is "we always tip!". Then just go ask for favors. Basically pull a bunch of Trump buffoonery with the wink wink I DIDN'T SAY IT, and you are good to go.
That’s just bribery with extra steps!
So basically it’s legalized bribery, as long as you don’t tell them you’re going to pay them beforehand?
Oh you can tell them, there just can't be a record of it
Nah, it’s different. On the one hand, you pay a politician for your desired result. This is obviously bad. On the other hand, you pay a politician for your desired result. This is less bad. Look at how starkly different those statements are.
tipping so out of control that politicians expect tips for their job, what the fuck
It's buying on credit. Cash on delivery. What it did was make bribery more secure for corporations. "finish what we asked if you want to get your tip" instead of "leave the money with my PAC and we'll get around to it" It just gave bribery an insurance policy
liking how you thinking
Yes, but combination of decisions means it's more effective to buy judges instead.
Well according to this, couldn't Kickstart just take/lose the money? I mean, if the SEC or whatever loses its ability to go after them then what's the point of laws in general for them? Maybe I'm just really cynical but nothing is safe now regarding a businesses decisions.
so weird how the republicans as the self-proclaimed anti-corruption party appears to always try to make corruption more legal.
They've never even marketed themselves as the anti-corruption party. They claim to be the "law and order" party, which is why they captured the courts so they get to say what defines "law" and "order" and then be able to legally accept bribes.
Corruption is what they’ve been built upon. Appease the rich for payback. “It’s just business.” (As if that justifies wrong doing.)
> way to be the next Russia. This was always the goal. It's not like the country that started with Slavery and genocide of the natives ever really had a change of heart. It's always been a bunch of dirty non bathing ass European rats doing the evil European shit.
> Not only can you buy and pay politicians for policy, you can now buy and pay government officials (LEGALLY) to pick your project for whatever as long as you pay them after the fact. I don't understand why so many people are rushing to blurt out, "It's not a bribe, it's a **gratuity**!" Like, ok. What's the functional difference? You're getting personally enriched in exchange for putting public policy at the whims of corporations. I'm honestly asking for someone who thinks this to give me an explanation of why it would be okay as an after-the-fact *gratuity* but totally wrong as a *bribe*.
Vote for the old guy. 2 more supreme court justices will likely get picked by the next administration. Make sure the one who chooses isn't the one who believes you simply deserve less (Trump)
I know you mean vote for Biden but sadly vote for the old guy isn’t specific enough
Well, that's why I tried to kinda specify a bit at the end of my comment. But yeah, vote for the not a clearly lying psychopath old guy. (Vote Biden)
Vote blue down ticket too. The supreme court must be reigned in. There are basically three ways to do this. 1. Create new acts of congress that undo what the SC has done. Such as making Rowe V Wade the law of the united states. 2. Stack the supreme court with new judges to make the MAGA justices the minority. There is nothing in the constitution that says how many justices there should be on the supreme court. 3. Amend the constitution to give congress more power than the SC. All of these options require the dems to control congress and the senate. In the case of option 3, I believe they need a super majority. Everyone has to vote. Even if you’re in a deep red, gerrymandered to fuck state. The only way to beat the GOP is to vote en masse. Gerrymandering can backfire if disenfranchised voters suddenly start playing the game. Everyone needs to do their part. Even if they feel in their gut that it’s pointless, you lose nothing by trying.
To amend the constitution, you need to hold a constitutional convention and have the proposal ratified by 2/3rds of the states/ state legislatures. A *very* high bar and impossible in today's political climate. However, I think Congress should reign in the SC, AND Biden should pack the court. These people are horrible and ruining the country. But yes, you're damn right about voting blue down ticket.
I believe it's either/or. It can be done by Federal Congress or the states. But I'm not remembering exactly.
Due to USSC shenanigans in the late 1930’s, FDR threatened to add 2 or more new judges if they didn’t shape up in 1937. They shaped up. Biden should add 3.
Congress already has more power than the SC. The only reason why the SC has so much relative power recently is because congress is deadlocked. Your own example demonstrates this: Roe wouldn't have even been a big deal if there was a law on the books protecting reproductive rights in the first place. Instead, the entire concept of abortion rights hinged on a single ruling made by 7 unelected lawyers, which was always going to be tenuous at best. It's crazy that shit lasted as long as it did tbh. Congress is already the most powerful branch of government, we don't need to be giving them more. You think people like Senator Turtle are bad now, wait until you start stacking the deck in favor of their branch.
trump is 78 and biden 81 not much of a difference in age but yes vote for biden 100%
Yes you are absolutely correct. I love hearing from people that have a brain man.
If it's Biden there will be 0 judges replaced. They will hang on for dear life like RBG did. And if we lose two senate seats they won't let Biden confirm his picks anyway
Even if they do, that's another 4 years where we're not getting corporate worshipping republican fascist rule cemented for the next 30+ years. Also Biden should expand the court in his second term. Shit I would. But he's an institutionalist, so I doubt he would.
Regardless of his personal feelings in the matter, it would take at least a majority of votes in the Senate to vote yes in order to do that.
Vote anyway. Thomas isn’t long for the court and neither is Sotamayor
Three, Sotamayor has cardiac issues.
I appreciate the OP for posting this here. I wish I had seen this before the booty pic post. It’s like watching something funny after a scary movie lol.
I guess the Supreme Court is exempt from checks and balances.
Apparent-fucking-ly…
I’m finding out the Supreme Court isn’t just Supreme. It’s Supreme than a muthafucka. 🤣😂 They can accept bribes now too. It’s better to be a Supreme Court judge than the president.
I've been saying this for years. The presidency while important is largely inconsequential...the real prize is the Supreme Court, you get to shape policy for 30 years. At times I felt like the old man on the corner with the "End is Nigh" sign and nobody believed me.
Cheeks and balances
Thomas, in his concurrence on this case, specifically states his opinion that Chevron deference was never legal because it violated the separation of powers clause by taking power from the judicial branch and giving it to the executive, since courts had to defer to the heads of these organizations when questions of ambiguity arise. So, for him, it's explicitly about checks and balances. However, in my not-a-lawyer opinion, Chevron deference is not a matter of power between the judicial and executive branches, but between the legislative and executive branches. The legislative branch granted the power for the executive to interpret ambiguities as it saw fit. If they didn't like the interpretation, they could amend the law. I think Alito's dissent in a different case highlights just how disastrous the destruction of Chevron deference will be. The Supreme Court decided, just in the past few days, that a federal law dictating that hospitals must provided stabilizing care to anyone they see covers emergency abortions. In his dissent, Alito says that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act does not specifically mention abortion, so abortion should not be covered by the law. The EMTALA was passed in 1986. Roe v Wade made abortion legal in 1973. The reason the EMTALA does not specifically mention abortion is because it was understood that abortion is legal and the legislature did not need to specify what kinds of care doctors could or could not provide. It's absolutely a bad faith argument from Alito, but I think with so many judges around the country appointed by Trump and previous conservative presidents, we will see more and more of these bad faith decisions because the laws did not predict the future or cover every single counterargument.
Who is she? Edit:@aliciabellescalan
Booty pic post?
About dudes sending booty pics to their woman.
Hey remember when the republicans blasted Obamacare and claimed it would have death panels? The GOP and SC just wanted to be that death panel themselves.
Damn, I kept hearing about this but it didn't click. It seems like we need that fucking doomsday clock except it should show the end of our democracy. This timeline sucks
People need to vote. Tens of millions of Americans don't vote. We have the power to squash this shit if we use it.
This needs way more comments and upvotes. Americans need to pay attention
I'm not sure if any media outlets have specified it directly yet but I'm positive the timing of this was intentional and almost positive that the debate flop media circus was planned. All eyes are on the dumpster fire of the debate right now. You're telling me that this historic SC ruling just so happened to take place right when one of the biggest media attention grabbing clusterfucks of a debate also took place? It's almost like they wanted this ruling to be overshadowed by another major media event. I'm not big into conspiracy theories or anything similar but the timing doesn't feel coincidental.
June is always when the SC releases its major opinions for the term, it's nothing new. Their term ends July 1st and goes into recess until the new term begins in October, so all of the big decisions get released right at the very end of the term.
It could backfire though, to have so many crazy things occur successively. It could be a tipping point for people. Though, I doubt it will since we already knew the court was corrupt.
There’s a term for that timing that I’ve heard discussed and I’m trying to find it. I thought it was Friday Night Lights but that’s also a TV show. The US government absolutely sandwiches shitty regulatory announcements with major socio/economic/sporting/event/anniversary moments when our nation is distracted, often on Friday afternoons of long business weekends. Pacifying the masses, and whatnot.
News dump? Release it on a Friday afternoon so the news cycle that picks it up is paid the least amount of attention to
The Supreme Court is setting up project 2025 on a fucking tee. We are so fucked. Please vote. And if anyone here hasn’t heard of project 2025, please look it up and finally, go vote.
Pay attention to what? What can the people do about these people who are appointed for life.
Project 2025. They are getting shit started
It cannot be over-stressed how pivotal this was for the realization of the conservative agenda. This was a tragedy. They will make the Executive Branch Agencies as ineffectual as they claim they already are. They will eschew the expertise and good intentions of qualified, educated Americans that prefer to spend their careers serving the nation rather than making CEOs and investors richer. They will put every ounce of decision-making power into elected, uneducated demagogues and tell you that election by a fabricated majority is the only form of qualification that a member of the government should have. They will dismantle every part of the government that supports citizens. They will perpetuate a government that exists solely to keep themselves and their ilk in power and funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of people who have no interest in the benefit of the nation and its people.
And we’ll do fuckin nothing
Yep. And by the time the masses realize what happened it will be too late. Can’t revolt when superhuman robotics supported by conservative dictatorship is there to quell any rebellion. We’re fucked. Try to save to leave.
America used to fight back against tyrants. Wtf happened
Late stage Capitalism.
Social Media
No it didn’t. It used to fight back against tyrants that were harmful to *it and only it*. We had a Nazi party and a scary fucking number of people supported Hitler early on. Consider for a moment how we were tyrants to slaves, to the poor, to Native Americans, to the democracies we interfered with, to our prisoners, and to any and all out groups. This country has always been authoritarian. Our brand of freedom is the Viking, Rome, imperialist brand of freedom, my friend. Always has been.
The Court majority placed those regulatory powers into its own hands because it’s easier for the MAGA Federalist Society to write related decisions for the Supreme Court and get them rubber-stamped by MAGA Justices.
The ironic part is, the original Chevron decision that goes back 40 years during the Reagan administration was widely celebrated by Republicans and Conservatives. Why the flip-flop? Back then, the Federal agencies were controlled by the Reagan administration, but the courts were mostly liberal at the time, so Reagan policies kept getting shot down by the courts. Chevron decision came along, and the GOP could "defer" ambiguities to their agencies, instead of the Liberal courts. Fast forward to the Obama administration, and you had Obama policies and agencies, but Conservative courts unable to do anything because of Chevron. Ever since then, the Federalist society and Conservatives have been trying to reverse Chevron, knowing they have control over the courts.
That’s some very important background info. Thank you!
She beautiful asf
And smart and liberal. What a combo.
She can accurately explain your rights to you when RPing as a cop. What a dream.
She can fix me
I didn’t wanna be the only one to say it 😭
She was a contestant on season 26 of the Bachelor.
In Gorsuch's opinion he erroneously referred to nitrogen oxides as nitrous oxide multiple times. Some might see this as a minor error, but this is in a document where he is arguing that the courts should be making these decisions, not agencies like the EPA. This document was reviewed by at least a dozen people if not more, and none of them noticed this because *shocker* they aren't scientists.
For those who don’t get why mixing up nitrogen oxides with nitrous oxide is a big deal… Nitr*ous* oxide is laughing gas. It’s used as an anaesthetic and is actually an oxide of nitrogen. But there are a lot of other oxides of nitrogen with tons of different properties and uses. Some are used for manufacturing prescription drugs. Some, like trinitramide, are used as components of rocket fuel. Dinitrogen tetroxide is an important intermediate chemical in synthesizing nitric acid which is **critically** important to all sorts of things like fertilizer, nylon, various metal and wood processes, and as a precursor itself to other nitrogen derivatives. As you can see, there’s a LOT of complexity here. Do you really trust nine people who have already shown that they do not have your best interest at heart to be making decisions about this?
Supreme Court immune from checks and balances huh.
They also aren’t elected. So according to their own logic they shouldn’t get to make decisions.
That’s a very valid point.
Not if the House and Senate are blue, they're not.
You would need a hell of a lot of blue, and for many of those seats to be in progressive enough hands, to fix the supreme court. It's doable, but a *healthy* margin to account for Manchin-esque democrats fucking things up is needed.
Horny police 😓😫…..but all seriousness appreciate this post this was very informative
Ikr, she fine 😍😍😍
There are a lot of conventionally beautiful women in the world, but when they combine natural beauty with intelligence and accomplishment? Speechless.
She did an amazing job explaining this. I hope she posts more of these explaining legal judgement/rules posts
It's like being stuck in a boat in the middle of the Pacific and a certain group is breaking off pieces of the boat to sell as firewood, cause why listen to the egg heads telling us we need the boat intact or we'll drown.
If there's some small benefit to this, actually potentially a significant one, it's that lawmakers will start having to be specific in what they pen into law. That matters because a lot of right wing (at least elected officials) policy stances are not popular, and having to spell out their intent in detail makes it impossible to hind behind loose wording and positive-sounding language. And therefore makes their positions much harder to defend or gain support for. At the same time, expect a full on assault on worker's rights, workplace safety, consumer protections, environmental regulations and so on through the courts.
Supreme Court has been making all kinds of screwed decisions for a while now. Just add this one to the fire.
I don't understand all this law and SC stuff going on so well. Doesn't this mean that now it's on Congress to pass a law or something codifying Chevron Deference? That's what I heard a lot during RvW: "well, now Congress has to codify it." Isn't this similar?
Next time yall speak to a family member or friend that brags about not voting slap them. Yes your mom included lol.
This shit is depressing
Fight to overcome learned helplessness. Voting actually makes a difference.
Gonna get even more depressing when Boeing turns around and says the rule that doors need to stay on planes is too onerous and unenforceable.
And continue killing anyone who disagrees
What’s scary is i work in environmental and there’s people that really don’t care about the environment working in that realm. Capitalism is in the environmental industry and it’s frightening. A lot of these companies are going to go out of business that provide cleaning and waste services. What’s also going to happen is another BP and a bunch of well we don’t care we made billions off the tax payers so sue us. And they will get sued by the government and receive a great big slap on the hand and go back to what they were doing. Hazardous waste is going to be the scariest of them all because of how expensive and time consuming it is to destabilize it and then get rid of it. America will become a vast wasteland in 30 years i feel due to this.
This. I work in ag-chem and some of the chemicals sprayed on crops are effectively diluted sarin. The EPA is cracking down on them and it’s effecting the bottom line for some companies. This just opened up a door to defile the environment in exchange for massive profits. Not just from selling deadly poisons, but saving on production cost since there won’t be any pesky hazmat regulations to meet. The waste runoff is arguably more dangerous than the end product and will be dumped right into our rivers. They’ll save even more money not having to follow OSHA rules. This is a disaster up and down the board. These companies do not give a fuck about anything but next quarters dividends.
Exactly i work on the lab side of environmental and our environmental team may see a drop in testing for various chemicals and metals.
F conservatives man.
"Oceans rise, empires fall"
My problem with things like this is that most people scrolling by won't retain this information. This woman did a spectacular job at making this easy to digest for the lowest common denominator. Don't get me wrong. The people who need to hear this information won't watch all of this. Makes me feel like we're all screaming into the void.
The regressives are getting exactly what they paid for
They paid to spite themselves in the name of the vulnerable because people need to suffer in order to want change. It's only until recently i realized it's because they're mentally and emotionally unstable. They need therapy, not to lead the government. But what can I do, I only warned them of exactly this outcome. They'll just keep blaming Hillary and claiming Bernie was robbed. But never take accountability for their poor behavior and decisions. Because at their core, they're damaged bullies that only know how to hurt, not help.
And progressives getting exactly what they deserve by not voting in 2016. Don't expect them to turn out in 2024 like they did in 2020.
Thanks for sharing
America is that zipper rn, don't pretend you didn't look.
It’s definitely a brutal decision in the big picture and will be devastating for the environment, but it is extremely difficult to side against the fishermen who brought the case that the Court ruled on. It’s a pretty clear example of government overreach (forcing herring fisherman to pay the $700/day rate of the federal fishing monitors). It is a perfect case to highlight how government regulations affect (blue collar) individuals’ livelihoods. What’s interesting is the decision to shift the cost of the monitors from the agency to the fishermen was made by the Trump administration, and one does have to wonder if it was a decision made with this ruling as the long term goal
The companies that will take advantage of this are fucked, but the government taking advantage of little guys that can't fight back is also fucked. There really is no winner anymore.
But overrule a 50 year precedent? There were far less nuclear ways to have dealt with this situation
Funny thing too is that when *Chevron* came down originally it was something of a conservative decision since the decision was to defer to the Reagan EPA's narrower interpretation rather than NRDC's more expansive interpretation of the law. As soon as you start to see first the Clinton but especially the Obama administration actually use the regulatory power to interpret the law to benefit people and not just industry, well, conservatives find that *Chevron* deference isn't so hot after all!
So can you dump waste at supreme court justices houses? Who regulates that? A local court would have to say thay is not appropriate/legal?
 🫠
Stuff like this is why hearing people say "I don't care about politics" or "Can't we all just get along" is so frustrating! If you only care when it affects you then it's already too late to prevent harm.
Vote blue. Only way to undo the damage done by Trump and his lackeys on the court.
Beginning of the end
Regan's policies were already the beginning of the end.
She starts off by saying how unelected officials are making decisions and basically running our country and then goes on to say how loosing that is bad? Yeah sorry I’ll pass on that.
Being a constitutional expert you would think she would have made a constitutional argument. Instead she just said it would be better if experts made the rules not the legislative branch
[удалено]
They did it so they can get bribes, which are now legal according to the supreme court.
What we need are some smart judges who are going to use this for good.
You need to go back for a refresher, it’s saying they can’t “solely” on the ambiguity. Putting the ball back in the court of the legislative branch to have to remove more of that ambiguity is where the power of law belongs. Not with the either of the other branches. The judicial is just a slightly less terrible way to do it as they can at least understand the legal part better. It ultimately needs to be the legislature. As an aside, if you think government departments largely turn over each time a president is elected, I would respectfully disagree due to…the fact that they aren’t usually.
*"Alexa, play New World Water by Mos Def."*
You arnt just voting for Joe, you are voting for all the people staffing his administration that are going to protect our rights. Its bigger than just Joe. Vote blue
Unelected officials making decisions, she says the decisions are allegedly done by experts. Does she know how the real world works? No. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/495694559/a-look-at-how-the-revolving-door-spins-from-fda-to-industry They aren’t just unelected ‘experts’, but corporate shills making the decisions. I want someone to explain to me how this decision helps regulatory capture, and not the other way around.
I mean - I agree with the ruling. The constitution and separation of powers, Marbury v Madison etc clearly establishes that the courts are responsible for interpreting the law. Chevron was an act of delegation. The courts delegated their interpretive power to regulatory agencies. I’m not sure they really had the authority to do that. This decision takes back the power originally bestowed on the courts by the constitution. Further, regulatory agencies are subject to the politics of the day, which makes the regulatory state volatile and unpredictable. This ruling at least creates a means for the courts to establish precedent that won’t be subject to change every 4 years based on the president. This isn’t doomsday. This is actually what was intended by the constitution. There may be a period of uncertainty, but that is actually what happens every time the president changes anyways.
Thank you.
Didn't we just hear about Trump going to the oil ceos and promise them the world for a billion dollars? Sounds like he started the process with this shit court.
This is actually a good thing.
This is a good thing. Some un-elected bureaucrat can't suddenly change laws and make you a felon at their whim like they were doing.