During a major hearing this week, the conservative justices made clear theyā€™re about to gut the federal governmentā€™s power to regulateā€”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 deferenceā€”the idea that courts should defer to executive agencies when applying regulations passed by Congress. Theyā€™re the most important cases about democracy on the courtā€™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.

Thatā€™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. Theyā€™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 wonā€™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.

Iā€™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.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    Ā·
    10 months ago

    Does anyone know if the ā€œliberal mediaā€ is going to stop using terms like ā€œoriginalistsā€ without laughing in the face of those that use such terms?

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      Ā·
      10 months ago

      Well, at least when listening to NPR, they seem to always say that ā€œoriginalismā€ 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 theyā€™ve been trying to cherry pick cases and legal arguments to make that happen. The court isnā€™t trying to solve a fishing case, it picked a fishing case to achieve a political objective.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        Ā·
        10 months ago

        Well, good for them. Far too often I seem to hear the ā€œliberal mediaā€ giving such a term serious consideration, when it should be openly mocked and ridiculed for the sham it is.

    • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      If youā€™re talking about the mainstream press, then there is no ā€œliberalā€ 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.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        Ā·
        10 months ago

        Yes, hence the scare quotes. I have yet to see evidence of this ā€œliberal mediaā€ Iā€™ve been told so much about (by reactionary extremists).

    • psvrh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      Ā·
      10 months ago

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

      Conservatives arenā€™t any better, theyā€™ll cheer fascism on.

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        Ā·
        10 months ago

        Are any of the ā€œliberalā€ 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.

        • psvrh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          10 months ago

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

          Itā€™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.

          Itā€™s particularly horrifying to see regulatory institutions becoming gun-shy about doing their jobs because theyā€™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.