|
Post by james on Jul 2, 2022 16:48:37 GMT -5
The EPA case majority ruling rests a good deal I appears on the notion that Congress cannot delegate broad policymaking authority to government agencies. The nondelegation doctrine. This is a major shift in SC thinking. One which will likely have wide ramifications and implications for many other laws brought before the Justices during their tenures. The particulars of the W.Va v EPA case are not it seems especially relevant to that. I may well be translating what legal reporters seem to have been saying badly. (Scotusblog have a write-up delving more into the particulars of the EPA case/ruling). www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/supreme-court-curtails-epas-authority-to-fight-climate-change/ETA - I have been feeling a bit remiss not bringing up something related to the nondelegation doctrine, the "major questions doctrine". The scotusblog piece does. I am not going to get into that though. That is bad of me. Sorry. đ
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 2, 2022 15:41:29 GMT -5
Delegation can be argued to go way back. An article in The Columbia Law Review that sees originalism and nondelegation doctrine as somewhat incompatible. I can't find the PDF link to the full article that this summary references. "This Article refutes the claim that the Constitution was originally understood to contain a nondelegation doctrine. The Founding generation didnât share anything remotely approaching a belief that the constitutional settlement imposed restrictions on the delegation of legislative powerâlet alone by empowering the judiciary to police legalized limits. To the contrary, the Founders saw nothing wrong with delegations as a matter of legal theory"
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 2, 2022 12:02:50 GMT -5
Chapeau! Mr. William Long of Canada.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 2, 2022 11:56:27 GMT -5
I heard this when I lived in Tenby, about 1952. Was it a nationwide joke? Tenby in Wales?
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 2, 2022 11:49:05 GMT -5
From a Washington Post article last October article that discusses the possible ramifications of the resurrection of the nondelegation doctrine. "What proportion of major statutes passed since World War II delegate power to government agencies? What percentage of major laws delegate? The answer is: more than 99 percent of them â so basically all of them. Only four of the 443 laws we examined do not delegate any authority to government agencies......
....If the courts start to lay down precedents for striking down statutes that delegate policymaking authority to agencies, virtually every major federal law since 1947 is on shaky ground."
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 1, 2022 22:20:45 GMT -5
My interest was piqued by the " nondelegation doctrine" (Guardian link ) aspect of the W.Va v EPA ruling which Prof. Richardson spoke of. I'm at least up to my nose now!
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 1, 2022 21:55:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 1, 2022 19:40:52 GMT -5
However, I think the ongoing attacks on decades and more of civil rights, gay rights, women's rights, environmental protection, voting rights and much more that are being heralded by the abandonment of case law precedent and the potentially unfettered power of unchecked state level actors were never likely to go unremarked upon.
Edit - I could have put that better/clearer but off screen life is intruding.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 1, 2022 19:13:23 GMT -5
The Republicans were court packing particularly feverishly during that 2019-20 flurry.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 1, 2022 19:10:13 GMT -5
I'm done getting involved in these threads.
Phew. That could spare me a hell of a lot of pointless typing! đ
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 1, 2022 12:03:10 GMT -5
But the abuse of the Senate filibuster by Republican senators means that no such laws stand a hope of passing. That right there negates his whole point. Calling the republican use of filibuster abuse after the democrats used it a record 328 times during 2019 - 2020 session and used it 657 times since 2009, so half the times they used it in the last 13 years was in one year, just to block anything and everything. The lends to bias, which means, he's got a lot of work to do to prove to me that his entire argument is full of you know what. Perhaps you didn't read the article/s She, not he doesn't have a single whole point and in other articles, (she writes widely and with well informed authority, she is a history Professor and author), has discussed the history and circumstances of filibuster usage and cloture by Democrats and Republicans. This article was not the one to revisit all that though and your cursory dismissal of the whole piece and all the supporting history for every one of her widely supported/shared, knowledgeable and deeply researched observations and explanations is odd.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 1, 2022 7:28:33 GMT -5
Not everyone wants to preserve democracy.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 1, 2022 6:54:12 GMT -5
Prof.Richardson elaborated on the Supreme Court's majority decision in West Virginia v EPA, and other SC matters. "Today, the courtâs decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency reversed almost 100 years of jurisprudence by arguing that Congress cannot delegate authority on âmajor questionsâ to agencies in the executive branch. At stake were EPA regulations that would push fossil fuel producers toward clean energy in order to combat climate change. The vote was 6 to 3, along ideological lines. That the court agreed to hear the case despite the fact that the rules being challenged had been abandoned suggested they were determined to make a point.
That point was to hamstring federal regulation of business. The argument at the heart of this decision is called the ânondelegation doctrine,â which says that Congress, which constitutes the legislative branch of the government, cannot delegate legislative authority to the executive branch. Most of the regulatory bodies in our government are housed in the executive branch. So the nondelegation doctrine would hamstring the modern regulatory state.
To avoid this extreme conclusion, the majority on the court embraced the âmajor questionsâ doctrine, which Chief Justice Roberts used today for the first time in a majority opinion.
That doctrine says that Congress must not delegate âmajorâ issues to an agency, saying that such major issues must be explicitly authorized by Congress. But the abuse of the Senate filibuster by Republican senators means that no such laws stand a hope of passing. So the Supreme Court has essentially stopped the federal government from responding as effectively as it must to climate change. And that will have international repercussions: the inability of the U.S. government to address the crisis means that other countries will likely fall behind as well. The decision will likely apply not just to the EPA, but to a whole host of business regulations.
As recently as 2001, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the nondelegation argument in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who said the court must trust Congress to take care of its own power. But now it has become law."
Also discussed, "Moore v. Harper, a case about whether state legislatures alone have the power to set election rules even if their laws violate state constitutions" and "âindependent state legislatures doctrine.â
"Revered conservative judge J. Michael Luttig has been trying for months to sound the alarm that this doctrine is a blueprint for Republicans to steal the 2024 election. In April, before the court agreed to take on the Moore v. Harper case, he wrote: âTrump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine (thus allowing state court enforcement of state constitutional limitations on legislatively enacted election rules and elector appointments) and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress' own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency.â"Better to read the whole piece and as necessary, the source articles listed at the end. heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-30-2022
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 30, 2022 19:34:22 GMT -5
DOJ could charge Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of the vote certification maybe? Still very little is known of the evidence they have been amassing as they have worked their way up through investigations and largely secret sworn testimony of increasingly senior and significant subjects www.emptywheel.net/2022/06/29/pat-cipollone-predicted-the-obstruction-and-confraudus-prosecutions/The witness tampering like behaviour revealed at the end of the Hutchinson hearing is also quite a teaser. Witness statements such as Hutchinson's at the Jan 6 hearings have been after sworn oaths and under penalty of perjury. Which is not insignificant. Documentary maker Alex Holder's footage and possible testimony(?) might well be interesting. www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/eric-trump-alex-holder-jan-6-b2110402.htmlThings definitely seem to be warming up on a few fronts. As yet undiscussed Meadows texts still to come ? Jan 5th Willard Hotel 'war room' shenanigans too. I wonder if Roger Stone or Ali Alexander have been helpful to/flipped by the DOJ subsequent to oathkeeper and proud boy cooperation? ETA - Bonus summaries and explainers from Prof.Richardson on the Hutchinson hearing heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-28-2022And the Cipollone subpoena and some hearing reactions
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 30, 2022 11:08:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 30, 2022 10:27:39 GMT -5
Contraception and abortion are not the same thing.
Pregnancy and childbirth are more than a mere "inconvenience"
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 30, 2022 9:57:58 GMT -5
Knew the Greek mythology question. Mama Google had to help with the federal holiday.
I fancy a bit of 12 string fun today. Probably CGDGBD.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 30, 2022 9:03:55 GMT -5
The labelling of abortion as murder, which has happened here is not particularly helpful for dialogue. Iâm being honest here and not snarky at all. What would be your definition of murder. US law defines murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice" UK law is similar but with fussier language. I am not a lexicographer. I have no particular problem with such definitions though. I am less comfortable with abortion being labelled murder, which by extension attacks many of our partners, relatives and friends and their abortion providers as murderers.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 30, 2022 8:11:53 GMT -5
The labelling of abortion as murder, which has happened here is not particularly helpful for dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 29, 2022 22:31:55 GMT -5
Ken Paxton wants 'sodomy' outlawed in Texas. The legislative route is now clearing. The supposed justifications for the majority opinion in Dobbs seem to pave the way. As bad as the picture already is, Dobbs is potentially disastrous for many more reasons than the criminalisation of women and the denial of their essential and fundamental human right to bodily autonomy.
|
|