My father worked himself to death as a federal district court judge. Even then, half a century ago, lawsuits overwhelmed the federal docket.
Chief Justice Roberts does not lay the foundation for an imperial court. Instead, he digs a collective grave for the federal judiciary. Lawsuits seeking to test and define the new standards will swamp the federal docket with cases which require federal judges to make informed decisions on obscure issues.
"Originalism" alone will require judges to have graduate-level knowledge of early modern law history. Overturning Chevron will require one blue-ribbon jury after another, and judges who completely understand the facts and data underlying a broad range of regulatory issues.
It certainly requires a vastly expanded federal judiciary. How opportune that there will be a Republican Congress to authorize all of the new positions, and a Republican president and Senate to fill them.
And it's something worth considering, from more than one angle.
If Trump wins, wouldn't it be better to have a less efficient judiciary?
Just playing devil's advocate, but our system of government works best when individual ambition is frustrated by process. If Trump wins, and creates, for instance, a Ministry of Morals, wouldn't we want to deny it the powers given under Chevron? After all, the only true rule in politics is "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".
I think all of your points are important to think about — but, I also think that there will be an asymmetry to the post-Chevron approaches between the left and the right, with more left-leaning judges fighting to justify decisions that right-leading (or just far-right) judges won't feel as much of a need to do. That, in and of itself, could ... change the change ... as it were.
True. On the whole, the left is on its back foot now, and can no longer look to the federal judiciary as a check on the right; so regulatory agencies acting under Chevron would serve as that check. (I hope that's a proper appreciation of your statement). But Chevron, essentially, reinforced the actions of whatever philosophy held a majoritarian position, by streamlining the process of enforcing that position. But what if that majoritarian position switches poles? Would an authoritarian like or dislike having powers created by Chevron?
Imperial court, indeed! Where the J6 insurrection failed, the Imperial Court of the United States has derogated from stare decisis and the Constitution and declared itself the sole arbiter of decisions that rightly belong to the legislative and executive branches of government. The Imperial Court has abolished the separation of powers. Truly horrifying.
Next up, passing their authority to tRump. Authoritarian plutocracy complete.
The whole Roberts project is finally complete. Dismantling the modern administrative state upon which the functioning of the US economy depends. It seems like Congress and the Executive have both had their power significantly diminished and thus we have no democratic recourse to rule by the courts.
SCOTUS, in it's grasp for more power, will have to be greatly expanded to take on all this decision-making that agencies have done in the past. Heck they are struggling to handle even the reduced number of cases they took this year. Time for Biden to help them cope by adding 9 more judges.
A question. If the court can set itself up as the “expert”, final word on every subject from the environment to healthcare, education etc, isn’t this what an authoritarian government looks like and so would this not be considered a coup which is treason, and the only way to right this sinking ship would be for the entire country to head to their voting precinct to vote A landslide victory every seat going to a Democrat in the House and the Senate as I believe only the House of Representatives has the authority to impeach a Supreme Court Justice and the Senate to convict. It’s like trying to light a wet match in the dark
As a lawyer albeit an English one I was always taught that law requires as much certainty as possible so that those who are governed by it can know what is legal and what not. This must be particularly important in the commercial field where businesses need to know what they can and can’t do without having to rush off to court every five minutes. This decision turns that upside down and is an invitation to every crook to break regulations and then defy the government or a competitor to sue them. It reduces the law to depending upon what was known in medieval England as the length of the lord Chancellor’s foot ie it was infinitely variable and gave certainly to no one.
The pen is indeed mightier than the sword. Laws are but words on paper, and those words can be manipulated to make them "say" anything they want. Hence, legalese🧐
"“statutes, no matter how impenetrable, do—in fact, must—have a single, best meaning" WTF. If that is the case then NO ONE, court nor agency, can "interpret it."
I wonder how Roberts got to law school without clearly having failed any English Lit course he ever attempted. I give you the unambiguous phrase "one plus one equals two." But consider: One husband + one wife = one husband, one wife, and one baby. Clearly the answer is three--just count on your fingers.
The US government has increasingly leaned on the rulemaking process by agencies to get anything done since our lawmakers do not get into the weeds of promulgating exactly what they want agencies to get done, and how. That level of specificity is also unrealistic given the size of the federal government vs. the size of congressional staff to write new or amend existing laws.
The Roberts majority is simply paying back its donor base by reducing the authority of agencies to pursue scofflaws. Extant lawsuits are likely going to end in favorable settlements, future lawsuits won’t even bother to be filed.
The extant federal judiciary isn’t remotely set up or qualified to step into the breach created by the Robert’s court majority and the logjams that presently snarl the federal judiciary process are only going to get worse. Rich corporations / donors can now simply out wait an administration to have their lawsuits dismissed.
This is especially relevant now that the Robert’s majority Supreme Court has made it practically impossible to pursue bribery charges. Likely with an eye on their own conduct.
Just to clarify, by extant lawsuits, I mean lawsuits brought on by agencies to pursue scofflaws. Going forward, agencies are going to be even more leery re enforcement since the judicial ground rules keep shifting unfavorably under them.
With this ruling I also expect an explosion of lawsuits against government agencies to thwart agency action, stay enforcement, and wait for a more favorable executive administration to reverse whatever the plaintiff is objecting about.
Bottom line, between weakening bribery enforcement and these kinds of changes, the donors to the Robert’s majority of the Supreme Court are going to get exactly what they paid for, and legally to boot.
SCOTUS went too far, too fast when they repealed Roe v Wade and pissed off women. Now, in their eagerness to finish their work and enjoy their ‘just’ rewards during what remains of their lifetimes, they have once again gone too far, too fast and pissed off most everyone else as well. This is not a winning strategy for Republicans or their theocratic Federalist Society backers come November. Let’s pull up our big kid pants and give them a November to remember by kicking all of their cans down the road.
My father worked himself to death as a federal district court judge. Even then, half a century ago, lawsuits overwhelmed the federal docket.
Chief Justice Roberts does not lay the foundation for an imperial court. Instead, he digs a collective grave for the federal judiciary. Lawsuits seeking to test and define the new standards will swamp the federal docket with cases which require federal judges to make informed decisions on obscure issues.
"Originalism" alone will require judges to have graduate-level knowledge of early modern law history. Overturning Chevron will require one blue-ribbon jury after another, and judges who completely understand the facts and data underlying a broad range of regulatory issues.
It certainly requires a vastly expanded federal judiciary. How opportune that there will be a Republican Congress to authorize all of the new positions, and a Republican president and Senate to fill them.
Yeah imagine how long these decisions will take to run through the courts.
That's an extremely good point.
And it's something worth considering, from more than one angle.
If Trump wins, wouldn't it be better to have a less efficient judiciary?
Just playing devil's advocate, but our system of government works best when individual ambition is frustrated by process. If Trump wins, and creates, for instance, a Ministry of Morals, wouldn't we want to deny it the powers given under Chevron? After all, the only true rule in politics is "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".
It should be apparent right now that change, not progress, is permanent. Roe is a good example of that.
I think all of your points are important to think about — but, I also think that there will be an asymmetry to the post-Chevron approaches between the left and the right, with more left-leaning judges fighting to justify decisions that right-leading (or just far-right) judges won't feel as much of a need to do. That, in and of itself, could ... change the change ... as it were.
True. On the whole, the left is on its back foot now, and can no longer look to the federal judiciary as a check on the right; so regulatory agencies acting under Chevron would serve as that check. (I hope that's a proper appreciation of your statement). But Chevron, essentially, reinforced the actions of whatever philosophy held a majoritarian position, by streamlining the process of enforcing that position. But what if that majoritarian position switches poles? Would an authoritarian like or dislike having powers created by Chevron?
Combine this with Snyder, and I half expect them to put out tip jars next term along with a big neon sign that just says "impropriety"
Rather it would say "Gratuities accepted here".
Even better. Also Alito's would be divided into two sections so you could vote for Martha's next flag with your tip.
Imperial court, indeed! Where the J6 insurrection failed, the Imperial Court of the United States has derogated from stare decisis and the Constitution and declared itself the sole arbiter of decisions that rightly belong to the legislative and executive branches of government. The Imperial Court has abolished the separation of powers. Truly horrifying.
Next up, passing their authority to tRump. Authoritarian plutocracy complete.
The whole Roberts project is finally complete. Dismantling the modern administrative state upon which the functioning of the US economy depends. It seems like Congress and the Executive have both had their power significantly diminished and thus we have no democratic recourse to rule by the courts.
SCOTUS, in it's grasp for more power, will have to be greatly expanded to take on all this decision-making that agencies have done in the past. Heck they are struggling to handle even the reduced number of cases they took this year. Time for Biden to help them cope by adding 9 more judges.
So wait, what's the difference between what Roberts wants for SCOTUS and Iran's supreme council?
A question. If the court can set itself up as the “expert”, final word on every subject from the environment to healthcare, education etc, isn’t this what an authoritarian government looks like and so would this not be considered a coup which is treason, and the only way to right this sinking ship would be for the entire country to head to their voting precinct to vote A landslide victory every seat going to a Democrat in the House and the Senate as I believe only the House of Representatives has the authority to impeach a Supreme Court Justice and the Senate to convict. It’s like trying to light a wet match in the dark
As a lawyer albeit an English one I was always taught that law requires as much certainty as possible so that those who are governed by it can know what is legal and what not. This must be particularly important in the commercial field where businesses need to know what they can and can’t do without having to rush off to court every five minutes. This decision turns that upside down and is an invitation to every crook to break regulations and then defy the government or a competitor to sue them. It reduces the law to depending upon what was known in medieval England as the length of the lord Chancellor’s foot ie it was infinitely variable and gave certainly to no one.
The pen is indeed mightier than the sword. Laws are but words on paper, and those words can be manipulated to make them "say" anything they want. Hence, legalese🧐
"“statutes, no matter how impenetrable, do—in fact, must—have a single, best meaning" WTF. If that is the case then NO ONE, court nor agency, can "interpret it."
I wonder how Roberts got to law school without clearly having failed any English Lit course he ever attempted. I give you the unambiguous phrase "one plus one equals two." But consider: One husband + one wife = one husband, one wife, and one baby. Clearly the answer is three--just count on your fingers.
Does this ruling confirm SCOTUS is an adhocracy?
Or a adhackracy.
The US government has increasingly leaned on the rulemaking process by agencies to get anything done since our lawmakers do not get into the weeds of promulgating exactly what they want agencies to get done, and how. That level of specificity is also unrealistic given the size of the federal government vs. the size of congressional staff to write new or amend existing laws.
The Roberts majority is simply paying back its donor base by reducing the authority of agencies to pursue scofflaws. Extant lawsuits are likely going to end in favorable settlements, future lawsuits won’t even bother to be filed.
The extant federal judiciary isn’t remotely set up or qualified to step into the breach created by the Robert’s court majority and the logjams that presently snarl the federal judiciary process are only going to get worse. Rich corporations / donors can now simply out wait an administration to have their lawsuits dismissed.
This is especially relevant now that the Robert’s majority Supreme Court has made it practically impossible to pursue bribery charges. Likely with an eye on their own conduct.
Just to clarify, by extant lawsuits, I mean lawsuits brought on by agencies to pursue scofflaws. Going forward, agencies are going to be even more leery re enforcement since the judicial ground rules keep shifting unfavorably under them.
With this ruling I also expect an explosion of lawsuits against government agencies to thwart agency action, stay enforcement, and wait for a more favorable executive administration to reverse whatever the plaintiff is objecting about.
Bottom line, between weakening bribery enforcement and these kinds of changes, the donors to the Robert’s majority of the Supreme Court are going to get exactly what they paid for, and legally to boot.
SCOTUS takeover of the US. We see this in nearly all their rulings. They ate illegitimate.
They would rule differently in some of these cases IF Dumpster was the sitting President.
.
Shocking but not surprising. They are following their orders from Leonard Leo, and nothing will awaken them from the fevered dream.
It now falls to the voters first then the congress to right this wrong. May god (whichever one) help us all.
SCOTUS went too far, too fast when they repealed Roe v Wade and pissed off women. Now, in their eagerness to finish their work and enjoy their ‘just’ rewards during what remains of their lifetimes, they have once again gone too far, too fast and pissed off most everyone else as well. This is not a winning strategy for Republicans or their theocratic Federalist Society backers come November. Let’s pull up our big kid pants and give them a November to remember by kicking all of their cans down the road.