It’s okay. They criminalized it for rich people too so it’s fair. Everyone equal under the law.
4 Likes
You didn’t?
4 Likes
And it was blue state governors (most notably Newsom) begging them to do it.
It’s where the liberal vs conservative cross cuts against the powerful vs powerless. Judges, in some fevered imagination, are supposed to push against the powerful on behalf of the powerless, but nah.
Yeah, I mean they’re simply politicians in robes. I expect them to do nothing more and nothing less than enact their policy preferences wrapped up in some legal argle bargle.
1 Like
Utter perfection.
1 Like
But norms. NORMS!
what would this accomplish? like, the bad guys here don’t want any rulings at all, clogging up the court doesn’t really hurt them, does it?
1 Like
Also infinitely easier to just to say ‘No’ than it is writing a X page brief. It’s not like the Supreme Court has to take a case anyways. They can just roll their eyes at Greenpeace and ignore them and unhook the velvet rope for whatever Fed Soc green lit made up group wants to sue the US.
That’s a two-edged sword, though. Gives the Supreme Court more opportunities to set terrible precedents.
On the other hand, this will likely end up making it harder for developers and others to get federal permits, because they will get challenged more often.
There is a huge problem with this idea. We need to build a shit load of stuff to have any chance of combating global warming and all that stuff takes tons of permits and approvals.
Can I get any cliffs on the Chevron ruling?
Was never going to happen in the best of times. We’re far too selfish and stupid as a country to make even the tiniest shared sacrifice to alleviate global warming.
Chevron deference had courts deferring to an agency’s interpretation of any ambiguous statute so long as it was reasonable instead of using their own judgement. The current case says that the Administrative Procedure Act requires judges to use their own judgement. Thomas goes farther in his concurrence by claim Chevron deference is also unconstitutional, stealing power from the judiciary.
1 Like
Maybe it’s just me trying to make myself feel better, but lets just imagine that Scalia and RBG are both still alive and kicking. Or just imagine that they both retired under favorable conditions for their side and were replaced with a younger, similar person. In that case, we’re still losing all of these 6-3s by a 5-4, right?
Well the judges are almost always right, sounds like a great ruling, thanks :p