Mark Joseph Stern, the legal analyst for Slate, asks and answers the question: was yesterday the most hopeless day of the SCOTUS term?
Yes. Yesterday and last week demonstrated the fact that we have a Supreme Court that is completely in the grip of the far-right branch of the Republican Party. They are extremists. They have no respect for the role of the Court.
Stern writes:
No single day has better captured the current state of the Supreme Court than Thursday. At 10 a.m., the court issued a devastating assault on the Biden administration’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases in a 6–3 ruling joined by all of the court’s reactionary block. Ten minutes later, it issued a 5–4 opinion that just barely confirmed that the president, rather than a rogue judge in Texas, has authority over border policy, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh lending the lone votes preventing an absolutely insane outcome. Shortly thereafter, the court issued a bombshell orders list that tees up, for next term, one of the most important and dangerous democracy cases in American history, which asks whether state legislatures have near-unlimited authority over election laws.
The court’s most immediately lethal decisionremains Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. But do not let Dobbs distract from the onslaught that followed it. If anyone still doubted that the Supreme Court served as the nation’s chief policymaking institution after Dobbs, Thursday should put that to rest. The court is ruthlessly efficient, putting our gridlocked Congress to shame with its speedy and definitive resolution of the most pressing issues facing the country today. It does not require hourslong hearings or endless negotiations to operate. The six-justice conservative majority chooses which conflicts to prioritize, takes up cases that present them, then picks a winner, nearly always for the benefit of the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
Consider the issues that SCOTUS has resolved this term—the first full term with a 6–3 conservative supermajority. The constitutional right to abortion: gone. States’ ability to limit guns in public: gone. Tribal sovereignty against state intrusion: gone. Effective constraints around separation of church and state: gone. The bar on prayer in public schools: gone. Effective enforcement of Miranda warnings: gone. The ability to sue violent border agents: gone. The Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases at power plants: gone. Vast areas of the law, established over the course of decades, washed away by a court over a few months.
There is no serious risk of another branch overriding these decisions. The squabbling among our elected representatives is, increasingly, a sideshow, with the court nudging along the decline of voters’ ability to shape their democracy. One-third of the court was appointed by a president who lost the popular vote, yet the majority evinces not a shred of caution about overriding the democratic branches or its own predecessors on the bench. It imposes Republican policies far more effectively than the Republican Party ever could. Real power in this country no longer lies in the people. It resides at the Supreme Court.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
As AOC has said, it’s a Supreme Court Coup
When Fascism came to America it was wrapped in a black robe and carrying an almost totally red-lined copy of the Constitution.
I read the Constitution again last night. I think we need to investigate whether these six are literate or even human beings at all. Perhaps they’re little Terminators sent back to put the final nail in the American coffin.
Said John Roberts when he left for recess:
Yep.
On Bannon’s “War Room” yesterday: The court’s decisions are the triumph of Trump and MAGA–the destruction of the administrative state
This is going after the heart of the administrative state. . . . This is just the beginning. –Bannon
“This is going after the heart of the
administrativestate. . .”Fixed.
Just the beginning indeed. Wait til Roberts et Pal come back in the fall.
They don’t just want to eliminate the “administrative state” .They want to eliminate the whole enchilada (along with all the people who made it)
It’s Grover Locust’s (sick) plan to drown the government in the bathtub.
Oops, left out a closing bracket.
This is going after the heart of the
administrativestate. . .”Fixed.
Just the beginning indeed. Wait til Roberts et Pal come back in the fall.
They don’t just want to eliminate the “administrative state” .They want to eliminate the whole enchilada (along with all the people who made it)
It’s Grover Locust’s (sick) plan to drown the government in the bathtub.
yup
“We don’t need stinking rights. America is all about making that cold, hard cashola, baby. Just gimme that money.” —Abigail Adams, 1789
He’s both correct and right.
Yes. Bannon and Miller are the brains of the MAGA outfit (deranged brains, but brains nonetheless). Trump isn’t, obviously.
If you ever get the chance to see the film/docu Spaceship Earth, wait for the twist near the end.
And, so, what is Biden willing to do to stop it? What are we?
Absolutely, unequivocally, and positively yes.
This court has undone in 10 days what has taken generations to build. It will take generations just to get back to where we were 11 days ago and I’m pretty sure I won’t live to see it. Nor do I have the confidence that enough Americans actually care about democracy to keep it alive. All you need is a committed, unyielding ideology to gum up the works to frustrate people further and blame it on the libs. That way government will never function and authoritarian ideals of efficiency become more important than individual rights or opportunity.
Real power in this country no longer lies in the people. It resides at the Supreme Court.”
It is just delusional to believe that before the current Supreme Ayatoll..I mean Court, the power lay in the people.
The people were being laid by the powerful, but that’s not quite the same.
Monika Lewinsky, for example.
Then again, I suppose that depends on what the definition of the word “laid” is.
For example If the ‘laid” means is laid and never has been laid, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there was no laying, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that laying, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”
So true.
This country needs to accept the challenge of climate change which is an existential threat to all humanity. We need to stop allowing the 1% to dictate policies that pay only lip service to this serious problem.
Clearly, ‘This country’ doesn’t give a damn.
On the other hand, I’ve seen a ton of ‘environmentalists’ who don’t know what they’re talking about. In part, they brought this catastrophe upon themselves by spouting bullpucky.
It’s so absurd that we let lawyers dictate our science policy.
If that is not a recipe for disaster, I don’t know what is
I respectively object to calling at least four of the six Supreme Court Justices conservatives.
For sure, without a doubt, I think that at least four of those alleged conservatives are theofascists.
Urban dictionary definition of theofascist: “A hardline, usually rightwing religious fanatic determined to subvert democratic freedom and replace a constitutional republic with a government controlled by their particular religion. History has shown that theofascist states are guilty of the worst human rights abuses and warmongering. The last attempt at theofascism in America was the failed experiment in Plymouth Bay Colony.”
And recently, Brain-Dead Lauren Boebert said as much. I do not think Boebert is capable of an original idea. She had to hear and/or read this somewhere else first. Where? Who?
Boebert can’t read.
None of the 6 Justices destroying our rights are conservatives. Not one.
They have no respect for precedent, stability, tradition.
They are extremists.
LibertAryans.
The criticism of the SCOTUS ruling regarding the EPA misses the point. The EPA’s proposed rules for greenhouse emissions may be good public policy, but Congress did not specifically give them the right to implement those proposals. It’s yet another case of Congress ducking its responsibility to legislate and avoiding accountability by having an executive branch agency do Congress’s job. This blog’s readers don’t care whether or not an agency overstepped its authority; if their preferred result is obtained by administrative edict, that’s fine with them. Whatever it takes, by any means necessary. Sorry, that’s not how the American system works. Congress, get back to work – legislate instead of posing in front of the cameras and raising money for re-election 20+ hours every week.
You have no understanding of the American governing process. In order for legislative and executive functions of government to work efficiently, authorizing legislation for issues like environment, health care, actually anything, have to be monitored by people who understand what they are doing better than most people in their fields. Throughout our history (note how the Court ignores history and tradition when it comes to legal standards, but not ideological ones the tailor the facts to the conclusion), Congress and the executive branches–but most importantly Congress–relies on experts who are far smarter than they are to recommend and implement policy.
The role of Congress is to monitor and evaluate what they are doing in real time and decide on policy parameters. What you are asking is impossible in the real world and the Supreme Court knows it can use fantastical theory to try to shape it. If your understanding of “how the American system works” were real, you would know that you are asking for government know more than anyone, anticipate future needs infallibly, and deal with ad hoc crises knowing what to do before it happens. That’s, to use a rare legal term, nuts. No government anywhere, especially in the modern world, can function like that. It could when peace treaties were negotiated an ocean away and it could have taken weeks to get accurate information.
I agree that Congress should get back to work. But your prescription and that of the Court–thus the law of this land for now–is not realistic in the modern world. For example, you would have to have staff people and members of Congress who are more knowledgeable about a rare disease than the experts working on cutting edge treatments and unproven ideas. I want scientists who are smart enough to do so working on the problem, not devising policy strategies for a future they can’t accurately anticipate. They need to report back to Congress in lay language people can understand so that the future policy environment can be set. But back to work. The first thing they should do is resurrect a working, predictable, committee-driven appropriations system. If you do not understand that sentence, you really have no idea how American government is designed to work. But you were never really interested in that anyway. Were you?
I was a professional-level employee in a federal regulatory agency for many years, so I have a good understanding of the authority that such agencies have and don’t have. Congress can grant wide discretion to regulators to implement regulations pursuant to specific statutes, thereby deferring to the expertise of specialists. But that authority is limited to what Congress delegates; when a regulator goes beyond that authority those regulations are void as a matter of law. Again, the EPA’s proposed rules for emissions may be good public policy, but if Congress did not delegate such authority to the EPA then those regulations are not valid law. The SCOTUS decision was decided on that very narrow ground and did not take a position of the wisdom of the proposed regulations.
I will disregard the ad hominem at the end of your comment, i.e. the staple of argument on this blog whenever anyone dissents from orthodoxy in the slightest.
More ad hominum attack: “But that authority is limited to what Congress delegates;” is followed by, in the sentence, mind you, with “when a regulator goes beyond that authority those regulations are void as a matter of law.” How specific should “that authority [be] limited”? How detailed should authorizing and appropriating legislative language be to direct policy? Who decides “when a regulator goes beyond that authority”? If, for example, EPA promulgates regulations on air pollution, should the levels be included in legislation? What if the science changes while the law is in effect? Who is accountable? According to the decision of the Court, not a single person, nor can government do anything about it, especially if it is in the interest of public health.
“The SCOTUS decision was decided on that very narrow ground and did not take a position of the wisdom of the proposed regulations.” There’s no need to consider wisdom of anything if it is moot.
It should be perfectly clear that the goal of the Republican party for decades , was to have the Court accomplish what they never would have the courage to attempt . And the hits will keep on coming.
Maria Segonia and GregB– Perhaps you two can elucidate the process for this layman. Greg says Congress needs the executive agencies’ input to legislation, because that’s who has the expertise. Maria says Congress did not delegate to EPA the authorization to implement the proposed policy. Are we simply saying that there’s a step missing? I.e., EPA lays out preferred technical policy for legislation, then Congress legislates (considering that and presumably other input from industry et al), then EPA breaks legislation down into executable actions via “rules,” and proceeds to implement?
Also, Greg: please explain “The first thing [Congress] should do is resurrect a working, predictable, committee-driven appropriations system.” I watch Congressional committee hearings on CSPAN from time to time. They gather testimony from experts at large as well as reps of govtl exec agencies, people in industry, ordinary citizens affected by current legislation they’re looking to change, & many others. What’s the thing missing they need to resurrect? [Is it not corrected properly to appropriations? Or that they never get around to legislating, or that legislation gets gridlocked?]
I’ll explain second part below to save space.
Maybe this would be helpful.
But i have no idea how accurate it is.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/how-the-epa-and-us-environmental-law-works-a-civics-guide-pruitt-trump/521001/
That’s a good summary. My comment in is moderation, so it may be a while,
thanks SDP for that user-friendly yet very detailed article outlining the govtl process for environmental regulation
From the linked article in The Atlantic
The process works like this: Congress passes a law with a general goal in mind—say, cleaner air around the country. This statute formally empowers the EPA, an independent agency of the federal government, to issue regulations about what companies must do to help bring about that cleaner air. Congress also gives money to the EPA to enforce those rules. Some of that money is supposed to go to states, who will enforce some of the regulations themselves.”
The Clean Air Act of 1970 tells the EPA to set standards for what kinds of toxic air pollutants can be released into the “ambient air,” either from factories or cars and trucks.”
If that’s a correct representation of the way the process was set up to work in 1970, I can’t see how regulating greenhouse gases (as opposed to other air pollutants) would require any new laws to specify exactly how that is supposed to work.
Perhaps Maria Segonia or someone else can explain precisely what makes greenhouse gases so different from other air pollutants that would require Congress to pass a specific law to deal with them differently than all the others.
I’d bet that most of the people defending the Supreme Court ruling could not even name three greenhouse gases (or even know that there is more than one). And they sure as hell would not be able to say how they cause global warming (if they even believe that)
This is what happens when we let the scientifically ignorant make critical decisions on what are fundamentally scientific matters. You can fool yourself but you can not fool Nature. The laws of physics do not bow to legal Courts.
There is currently a war going on between lawyers and scientists.
And the lawyers are taking out the scientists with neutron bombs.
The very bombs that the scientists invented!
Without the scientists, the lawyers would still be living in caves grunting their Supreme rulings.
Justasses
While scientists discover
And engineers invent
Supremes just try to cover
Their anuses with scent
“The EPA’s proposed rules for greenhouse emissions may be good public policy, but Congress did not specifically give them the right to implement those proposals.”
Huh. Did Congress specifically give right to car makers and owners to produce greenhouse emissions?
How top-down do you claim the decision making process is supposed to be?
Is the EPA just an advisory agency of Congress? How about the CIA or FBI? Do they (should they) just advise Congress?
“by all of the court’s reactionary block”
At least one pundit has the cojones to call a spade a spade.
Only in Wyoming.
Or Utah.(control of semen)
I lived in Utah for 15 years and most of the Republican politicians (who pretty much control everything) were frighteningly stupid.
Remember Cold Fusion?
The Utah legislature funded it to the tune of $5 million dollars before it had even been verified (which it never was)
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/supreme-court-women-rights-versus-men.html
They are also firmly in the grip of institutional religion which wants to rule society.
Beating a dead horse. Does the refusal to name one’s enemy hamper the war effort? Is there a sect(s), in particular that has had success in taking away our rights through political action? Steve Bannon has said what drives him and has behaved in a manner consistent with his statements. It is clear where he has marshaled support for Republican voting. Does giving his religion cover, advance the fight against “institutional religion”?
Supreme Papalfilia
They follow Papal rules
And write the Papal bills
And codify Belief
With methods of a thief
Oops, misspelled “Papalphilia”
Supreme Papalphilia (2)
The Justass is a Papalphile
A lover of the Pope
He makes his love with legal file
And masking tape and rope
“methods of a thief” – well-stated
There are pious who should take ownership for the 10- year- old abuse victim in Ohio who is 6 weeks and 3 days into the forced birth process (reported today). I don’t know how the liberal among the sect(s) live with themselves. Their acceptance of the churches’ overt discrimination against women made them look bad enough without adding the perpetuated victimization of children whether it’s by priests raping them or children forced to incubate sperm to produce rapist baby daddies.
Article I, section 7 is devoted to the raising of revenue for the federal government. One provision of Article 1, section 9 states “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”. So in order for government to function, the framers understood it needed a steady stream of reliable funding as well as a transparent method by which to spend. Appropriations are literally the only actions that are explicitly stated and have to be done, and that can’t be done without revenue.
Until 1995, the appropriations process was relative apolitical–it was about making the agencies of government function, not perfectly, but function–and if something was politicized, it was generally focused on narrow issues in one of the annual 13 appropriations bills that fund all discretionary spending. Since the fiscal year begins every October 1, it is imperative that all 13 bills pass by September 30. In the past, one or two of those bills might have been held up past the deadline because of a political issue, but the entire process was not held hostage to it. With some glitches, this process worked relatively well.
The appropriations process was also an organizing tool for political power and patronage. It was (and still is by many) considered the plum committee assignment in Congress. And chairmen of appropriations subcommittees on both sides of the Hill had extraordinary impact in their areas of jurisdiction. Members of subcommittees were expected to gain expertise in the agencies they were responsible for and it gave them clout to politick behind the scenes with other subcommittees. (A member who wants funding for an education program in their state can pledge support for another member’s water project and each can take credit for both.). If things remained by the time it became law, it allowed those members to go back to their constituents to tell then all the wonderful things they got for the state and/or district. Members were spread out between the states and since the focus was on making government function, it created more opportunities for genuine bipartisanship. Being a member of a subcommittee meant having broad responsibilities based on expertise.
That all changed when Newt Gingrich became speaker in January 1995. He put all legislative power in the leadership rather than sharing it with the committees. He also took charge of the legislative schedule to use the appropriations cycle to highlight issues they wanted highlighted in the way they wanted. So, for example, relatively benign medical research using inert cells that had great implications became fetal tissue which was tied to the abortion debate and then tied not the funding of the project at hand, but of the entire National Institutes of Health and, in consequence, all heath, education, and labor funding since they are all in the same appropriations bill. Making it even worse, Gingrich took the scheduling out of the hands of the committees and instead of each going on its own course until passage, Usually between Labor Day and September 30, he took away the final step and bundled all the bills. So now a narrow issue like the contrived fetal tissue-abortion-medical research-NIH-all Labor, HHS, Ed funding thread threatens all discretionary funding with the exception of Defense, which is now 70% of all annual federal discretionary spending.
Prior to Gingrich, the mad rush every October that often extends in March is because there is some issue in those 13 bills that can’t get resolved. So rather than resolving it, the continuing resolutions that are passed do not allow agencies to plan, they have to make do with the previous years budget and hope Congress and the president will keep signing them to avert a government shutdown. But the biggest thing it does is put the final step of the appropriations process not in the conference committees where it belongs, but in the leadership offices and the head of the Office of Management and Budget. This is why things just show up in the dead of night when these mega bills are passed at 3 am. The leadership gives its blessing to insert them, which basically makes subcommittee expertise moot.
Most important, by not having a regular system, it holds almost all activity on Capitol Hill hostage. Most of the actions you see now at the House Appropriations subcommittee level is purely advisory. They themselves have no idea if their priorities will be addressed until they, like all of us, see the final law that is passed. And most of all, since no Americans understand what is going on, it increases frustration and makes actual lawmaking look sinister if you believe every conspiricism out there. If we went back to regular order in appropriations, it would depoliticized 99.9% of federal spending, it could be predictable and bipartisan, and, most of all, it would dramatically redistribute power and responsibility in Congress, taking it back from crisis leadership.
Thank you, Greg, this is so helpful. I have often looked up articles trying to understand Congressional gridlock, and why the annual gigunda bundled bills. None was so clear as this. “You should be a teacher.” [I assume you are one.]
Now that I have a better understanding I can frame better questions. I found this article today: very absorbing. It goes into history and all the ramifications. “The Regular Order: A Perspective https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R46597.pdf
Thank you so much for posting this. I haven’t read all of it, but obviously relate to the parts I have so far. When I worked in the Senate from 1991-3, one of the great joys was having access to CRS reports. I was still a young, idealistic former teacher and not really sure what I was interested in and the CRS room was full of racks with in-depth, serious, nonpartisan reports about any issue one could imagine–science projects in Antarctica, cultural studies ranging from Africa to Appalachia, regulations, how certain laws fared over time, just anything. I used to have a 6-12 inch pile of them on my desk all the time. The Washington DC I remember from then was one that had a top expert in just about any subject in the world in a radius that went out to Bethesda, up to Baltimore and well into Virginia. And as a staffer to a powerful senator, I could always talk to or ask for an explanation from any of them. You could meet a librarian the the Library of Congress who curated jazz music and he would invite me to listen to old Jelly Roll Morton discs that had not yet been transferred to cds. This report is a great example of why CRS reports are so valuable.
The Extreme Court just took a case that, if decided as it is likely to decide it, would place all power over elections in the hands of state legislatures, which are primarily Repugnican.
Well, that whole democracy thing was an interesting idea for a while.
Yep. This is why next term will be worse than this one.
Where is the system of checks & balances?
& I repeat, & I’ll KEEP repeating: WHY was clarence thomas in the hospital? Physical or mental? Stroke w/mentally debilitating results? The public has a right to know, because he’s been exhibiting the tendencies of a zealot, & we cannot have an impaired justice on the SCotUS. For those of you who knew him in law school (e.g., Hillary Clinton) or at times other than these who say “he has always been like this, ” I answer, “Well, even more so. A zealot. Someone who does not know know the difference between right & wrong, between insanity & reason, between justice & mayhem.” I very seriously urge you all to contact your Senators & your Representatives to investigate clarence thomas.
We know Gorsuch & Kavanaugh are liars (yes, AOC, I agree that they should be impeached), but thomas has been a lightning rod, especially as of late (has Ginny been egging him on?). N matter as to the latter–I am very serious as to my questions regarding his mental state, & I think Congress should be, as well.
As to the Constitution:
A # of years ago, I attended a book discussion/signing by a brilliant professor (recently deceased) who wisely advised us, “Everyone in America should carry a copy of the Constitution in his.her/their pocket/purse.” I agreed: I bought a copy from our local Dem Org. at a political event @ which former FL legislator Alan Grayson spoke (notice, he’s been out of office for quite some time. Of course–a Dem), I don’t leave home w/o it, have referenced it, & have never been sorry. I recommend that you all do the same. We’re gonna need it.
I guess it isn’t all that surprising, but it is nonetheless disturbing that, like “alternative facts”, there is an alternative Constitution.
But Lee’s copy was no ordinary Constitution. It was an annotated version that’s published by a fringe Mormon group founded by the late conspiracy theorist W. Cleon Skousen and which has become the favorite of anti-government extremists and right-wing figures, including the men who led an armed seizure of an Oregon wildlife refuge over the conviction of two arsonist ranchers.
The booklet is annotated in such a way as to make it seem like the founders envisioned a solely Christian nation and a severely limited federal government. It includes both the Constitution’s original text and several religious ― at times out-of-context ― quotes from the Founding Fathers.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mike-lee-pocket-constitution_n_5f88b08cc5b681f7da1fdee3
I’d venture to say that there are probably more nutcases in the Western US than in Afghanistan.
Repugnicans have figured out what Dimocrats have not: If you want to win elections, you have to stand for something. That’s why DeSantis will choose Ivanka Trump as his 2024 running mate.
His thinking: What would galvanize the base? What would the other side hate more than anything?
Why do you think he’s ALWAYS looking for a way to stick it to the Libs?
–Bob “The Seer” Shepherd
DeSantisomething
DeSantisomething means
DeGalvinize deBase
DeStickito deLibs
DeEnergize deHate
yup
Republicans stand for evangelical and Catholic alignment with despots.
Christians over non-Christians, White over Black, man over woman, straight over gay.
Also, Christians over other Christians with differing beliefs
You know, the “God’s Chosen People” phenomenon.
The link to Stern’s article is incorrect (html is mission at the end). Here is the correct link.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/climate-change-epa-supreme-court-revolution.html
When I was a child, we used to drive over to Zebulon,NC to see my grandmother. 600 miles in a summertime hot 55 Pontiac. Misery except for the trip through the Smokies. We always visited my aunt in Maryville. Back then I was a little tyke and Lamar Alexander was barely in college.
There was a big Billboard outside Maryville. It simply read: Impeach Earl Warren. It is possible that it was there only one year. I bet it had been there since 1954. My parents explained about Brown v Board in a way a small child could understand.
Earl Warren stayed in office, of course. His congressional overseers who have the constitutional duty to impeach based on the proper conditions were moderates who knew what sort of men had placed that sign.
Now moderation has given way to radicalism. Almost to a person, Republican voters accept the Reagan premise: Government is the Problem. The solution demands that good government is to destroy government. So Trump, the logical result of what Reagan said but never believed, placed incompetent or adversarial people in almost every position of administration, or the position was left empty. Meanwhile, Trump, with the blessing of old moderates like Lamar Alexander, placed three radical justices on the Court, two of which even went to the same high school and one of which belonged to a cult.
Now we have a court that will require that every policy that exists be legislated. The impossibility of this is surely not lost on them. Nor are they unaware that this impossibility grants the court itself enormous power.
Expect continual rollback of personal freedom and enhancement of corporate freedom.
Your final two statements provide succinct comment on the U.S.’s future.
Men like Koch (his money) and Bill Gates (his finesse) have won. Elon Musk is a latecomer blowhard to the their cause.
I am so disappointed in Lamar Alexander. He is not a crazy religious zealot. I know that he never liked Trump. I saw him before the 2016 election, and he told me Trump would never win. Lamar is a old-style Republican, who didn’t believe the government should tell everyone what to do. His type is gone, replaced by authoritarians.
Did he keep his mouth shut and support DeVos out of party loyalty?
Bill McKibben has a powerful post in response to the end of EPA regulations:
https://t.co/gRDbWZ6n57
It took Neil, the son of Anne Gorsuch, to complete the mission begun under the Reagan administration.
Supreme Ideology obviously runs in families.
Supreme Ideology
Supremely ideological
The gist of Roberts’ Court
Religiously illogical
That guts the laws for sport
Nothing will change. Congress won’t do anything to effectively overturn the Court rulings, not even the ones like Kennedy based on a fabricated story. Nor will Congress even increase the number of justices. Nor will the president even call for the elimination of the filibuster.
The Court will continue to gut our government , our laws, our Constitution and our rights until there is nothing left.
How are those Checks and balances working?
Checks and balances depend completely on the capability and willingness of each branch to use it.
Absent capability and willingness to use, they mean nothing.
And that’s where we stand right now.
Willingness to use: the president could decide not to enforce Supreme Court rulings (that overturned the NY concealed carry law). Check.
He could also decide to continue to enforce laws that they overturned (the EPA regulations on Greenhouse emissions) Check.
If the Supreme Court is going to play chess for blood, then the President needs to quit playing tiddly winks
Everyone acknowledges that the President has extreme power to defend the country when it is under attack by an external enemy.
So why doesn’t he also have the power to do so when the threat cones from within another branch of the government?
The Founders never imagined a Supreme Court controlled by religious zealots.
And anyone who makes the argument that the Supreme Court is operating within the law and Constitution is just delusional or dishonest.
SDP, the SCOTUS 6 don’t answer to the Constitution. They answer to a higher power.
It’s more than coincidence than within a very short period of time we have had two different branches of the government try to take over the others — and the entire country — in what can only be characterized as coups.
You can’t counter a coup by asking the folks responsible to play nice.
They answer to a higher power
I know.
It’s called Supreme Papalphilia
https://dianeravitch.net/2022/07/01/mark-joseph-stern-the-most-hopeless-day-of-scotus-term/comment-page-1/#comment-3389310
“The Founders never imagined a Supreme Court controlled by religious zealots.”
I can’t imagine why not.
They had just fought a bloody war to break away from a monarchy and Kings had a long history of claiming divine right.
And the colonies were veritably chock full of religious zealots.
I should have said Kings and their Courts had a long history of claiming divine Right
Supreme Zeolotry
A Colony of zealots
Religious to the bone
A Court that uses mallets
To break our country down