this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
507 points (98.3% liked)

politics

18645 readers
3548 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

During a major hearing this week, the conservative justices made clear they’re about to gut the federal government’s power to regulate—and take that power for themselves.

The Supreme Court heard two consolidated cases yesterday that could reshape the legal landscape and, with them, the country. The cases take on Chevron deference—the idea that courts should defer to executive agencies when applying regulations passed by Congress. They’re the most important cases about democracy on the court’s docket this year, and I say that knowing full well that the court is also set to decide whether a raving, orange criminal can run again for president, and whether former presidents are immune from prosecution for their crimes in the first place.

That’s because what conservatives on the court are quietly trying to do is pull off the biggest judicial power grab since 1803, when it elevated itself to be the final arbiter of the Constitution in Marbury v. Madison. They’re trying to place their unelected, unaccountable policy preferences ahead of the laws made by the elected members of Congress or rules instituted by the president. If conservatives get their way, elections won’t really matter, because courts will be able to limit the scope of congressional regulation and the ability of presidents to enforce those regulations effectively. And the dumbest justice of all, alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh, basically said so during oral arguments.

I’m contractually obligated to tell you that the cases were technically about fees that fisheries are required to pay to federal observers. But all the justices talked about was Chevron deference. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor even bothered to mention the fish, three hours and 20 minutes into a three-and-a-half-hour hearing.

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 83 points 7 months ago (3 children)

duh

It is what they said they would do, now they are doing it, later they will brag about having done it, rinse & repeat with the next item on their agenda.

Liberals gonna liberate, while conservatives gonna ~~conserve~~ radically overthrow everything that has come before. It is no accident, it was the point all along.

Maybe RBG could have helped by stepping down, at her advanced age, rather than rolled the dice. Now surely Biden, in his own advanced age, will learn from that? Or, you know, we can roll the dice again I guess...

[–] [email protected] 28 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

How does Biden's age enter into this at all? That's what the vice president is for. It doesn't in any way equate to what happened with RGB.

Moreover, this is specifically about conservative justices, put in place through stolen judicial nominations, fucking the court system up.

And you decided to take that chance to whine about liberals?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What are the odds that we roll "Snake Eyes" this many times in a row? The worst timeline.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I promise you: we will be absolutely shocked every. single. time. Shocked, shocked I say - SHOCKED!

Just like with school shootings - who knew that entirely ignoring the issue wouldn't completely solve it, or like do anything at all except allow it to fester? Shocked. I. Say. :-(

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The dice are weighted, I'm not sure why anyone is shocked.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Bc media sells better that way.

Over the bodies of children.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, RBG - the three horsemen of the apocalypse.

Each one playing a crucial role in destroying our democracy because they selfishly thought they were the chosen ones.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago

You'd think the republicans, their voters, their donors, and the whole media apparatus behind it, would get some of the blame too. I know, they'll see it as glory rather than blame. The dems didn't do it, they were just lame.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 7 months ago

Obvious "but not equally" comments aside, there does seem to be a lot of that going on lately. I can only hope that they each thought that they were doing the best that they could at the time... except that thought is somehow the most terrifying of all!? :-(

I wish I could rather live in a la-la land of make-believe conspiracy theories, like maybe there really is nobody in the entire USA who could possibly hold a candle to how smart, handsome, and all-around awesome Joe Biden is (...in his own mind?); or it would be a relief actually to hear that his illuminati overloads commanded that he tank the election so as to allow a Republican to win (you know, rather than it being an oopsie that will bring all of America crumbling down along with it); or maybe aliens are actually real and it's so important for like uh... the planetary war that's currently going on that he alone be President, no other Democrats can possibly work for ah... "reasons".

But most likely he's just old, thinks he really is the bee's knees or cat's pajamas or whatever old-timey phrases they used back in his day, and he'll go right on thinking that... until he dies of a stroke or whatever. I am even willing to concede that the likelihood of that might be low - science is freaking awesome, and medical advancements are astonishingly ah... advanced these days - but what I want to know is, why are we willing to gamble on that? And I mean, SO HARD that we aren't even willing to hold primaries, in order to at least see what the other options might have been? Especially, as you pointed out, after we have tried that TWICE BEFORE in recent history and lost so hard that a 5 decade old foundational underpinning of human rights was lost in the process? Are we now trying to do double-or-nothing? (except if so, what could we possibly gain from that?)

Also, even if we take it as a given that he wins - which is at least somewhat likely b/c DT is even older so if Biden loses, it probably won't be his age that was the swing factor - what about after that, like why aren't we raising up a new generation of Democratic hopefuls for the future, i.e. by letting them run in campaigns now? Then again, the last time we tried that things did not work out so well - the choices were the death of democracy, vs. a whole slew of jokers that had no chance even against that somehow? :-( IS BERNIE SANDERS THAT SCARY TO THEM!?!?! Oh wait, I think I answered my own question there, nvm:-(.

Second only to conservatives, the worst aspect of politics is liberals. :-| Our "ruling class" is so disconnected from reality at this point:-(.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 7 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Really a bad choice to let the insects take over our judiciary.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Are you saying they're all locusts?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

Their effect on civil rights and justice in general is analogous to the effect of a colossal swarm of locusts on fields of crops, yes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

And here I thought they were lizards.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

In both 1803 and 2024, one of the broods that emerged was Brood XIX, also known as “The Great Southern Brood.” Coincidence? 🤔

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Electric Boogaloo

[–] [email protected] 34 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Does anyone know if the "liberal media" is going to stop using terms like "originalists" without laughing in the face of those that use such terms?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well, at least when listening to NPR, they seem to always say that “originalism” is basically just an excuse.

Weekend edition this AM was literally saying that the conservatives were looking for a way to cripple the regulatory state and they’ve been trying to cherry pick cases and legal arguments to make that happen. The court isn’t trying to solve a fishing case, it picked a fishing case to achieve a political objective.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago

Well, good for them. Far too often I seem to hear the "liberal media" giving such a term serious consideration, when it should be openly mocked and ridiculed for the sham it is.

[–] pandapoo 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

If you're talking about the mainstream press, then there is no "liberal" media, only neoliberal, and they usually remain pretty quiet on the issue of SCOTUS expanding corporate power. Which has been pretty nonstop since the 1970s, and those cases are usually decided somewhere between 7-2 and 9-0.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

Yes, hence the scare quotes. I have yet to see evidence of this "liberal media" I've been told so much about (by reactionary extremists).

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

Yes. They will start doing so when it is too late for that to help.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I really hate saying this, but it seems to be true: if it's a choice between maximum economic growth and democracy, liberals will grudgingly goose-step along the path to higher GDP.

Conservatives aren't any better, they'll cheer fascism on.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Are any of the “liberal” media outlets actually arguing that this will be fantastic and great for economic growth?

CNN, NPR, BBC America, MSNBC are all talking about how this is a power grab for the courts and will be completely disruptive in terrible ways.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

They kind of sleepwalked into it, especially CNN and the NYT. They're still exceedingly unwilling to call out protofacism, still too eager to appear fair and balanced, and they're still allowing the right wing to set the agenda.

It'll be particularly tragic in a decade or so when the editors of the WaPo or NYT get defenestrated, and no amount of Hugh Hewitt fascist wster-carrying editorials will make the right wing respect them.

It's particularly horrifying to see regulatory institutions becoming gun-shy about doing their jobs because they're worried about a Republican AGs looking for precedent to further dismantle the regulatory state. The EPA is currently afraid to do its job, and the FCC, FDA and FTC are also being cautious. I can imagine the SEC and IRS are a little worried, too.

[–] Assman 26 points 7 months ago

Pack the court

[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago

And the dems are just going to let it happen too..

[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago

National criminal cartel plans to make it easier to crime. More at 11.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

I hope they get us free Tekron with all that Chevron deference.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And when shit finally hits the fan, they'll be dealt with first. You guys really should watch this interesting documentary called "The Purge." It shows how the law and society can easily be balanced out.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

You don't need to watch a fantasy film.

We know what happens when you can't regulate already.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught-fire-least-dozen-times-no-one-cared-until-1969-180972444/