News

I think their argument is more that the agencies aren't allowed to be the ones to say how a law is applied as far as regulations go. If a regulation is vague enough the EPA isn't allowed to clarify anymore, it needs to go to a (more than likely rubber stamp) court where the judges decide, instead of, you know, anyone who would actually have expertise... It's legally "reasonable" but practically insane.

SCOTUS is unchecked by the rest of the federal government. The only thing that would limit their power is a constitutional amendment, which requires 38 states to individually ratify it at the level of their state governments, not their federal congresspeople.

There is literally no way for congress to affect the supreme court once it has 9 justices, or contradict its rulings on laws they call "unconstitutional", short of impeaching supreme court justices or packing the court with more than 9 justices. Once enough of the court is full of fascists or enablers, it's EXTREMELY hard to escape fascism without a constitutional convention.

Is SCOTUS bound by anything?

flipping open my Lockean theory of self-governance

Strictly speaking, the power of government is in its ability to achieve (relatively) peaceful compliance. The SCOTUS decision creates an opportunity for individuals to behave in defiance of the written law with a certain fearlessness. A President can go full Andrew Jackson and tell the judges to enforce that decision, but he's still got to command a bureaucracy full of people who can be swayed in the other direction.

What happens to a regulation that nobody is willing to enforce? What happens to a federal regulation that runs afoul of state law, in a district where municipal/state law enforcement will enthusiastically arrest and local DAs prosecute a federal agent?

I would say that's the real power of the SCOTUS. Opening the legal door for disobedience and negligence at the federal level, while state-level revolt occurs downstream.

In theory that was supposed to be the strength of SCOTUS, that being secure in their employment for life (or until retirement), they had no incentive to judge along party lines for fear of future prospects. However, we've seen that judges can still be both very partisan and entirely unqualified and we can now do nothing to remove them. Turns out bribery and threats still work on them

There's at least a possibility of the executive having enough expertise to regulate reasonably. The courts don't have the resources, but they've grabbed that power to themselves.

don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

This sentiment is way too rare. Personally I'm a fan of using "don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough"

the nutjobs will never get the freedom they want. they want freedom to step on others and freedom from accountability.

they do not have the same desires as you and i.

Plus the filibuster requires 2/3, not a simple majority to get anything done.

Unless you do everything at once with conflicting interests across different parts of "everything" and you get an omnibus bill, which is the only way to actually get anything done in congress nowadays (for some god-forsaken reason)

The court basically said it was a separation of powers issue. The basic powers of the branches are:

• The Legislative (Congress) creates laws
• The Executive (President) actually puts those laws into action (they are "executed" by this aptly named branch)
• The Judicial (courts) interpret legality of the actions of the Executive branch based on the wording of the laws passed by Congress, and the constitutionality of those laws (that is, if the law itself is even legal to be enforced)

The Chevron Deference doctrine was the courts saying "Congress occasionally writes laws vaguely and we don't have expertise on every subject matter, so we are going to defer the decision-making of what exactly the law means to actual experts in the Executive branch." Congress has written laws using this logic, intentionally granting power to the Executive branch that would otherwise reside with Congress (i.e. Congress says "how much of X particulate in the air is too much? We could write a specific law stating that 500 ppm is too much, but it's a lot of work to do that for every particulate, and the science gets updated over time, so we'll just tell the Executive to place 'reasonable limits' and call it a day.")

Now the Court has said "That power you've ceded to the Executive branch? That should be ours because it's our job to interpret what laws mean. We now decide how much of X particulate is too much, even when we mix it up with Y particulate."

It's a blatant power grab by the Court and a separation of powers issue. Congress SHOULD be able to remedy it by specifying that this decision-making power should reside with the Executive branch and the Judiciary won't be able to say "no mine". I mean, this Court WILL, but a legitimate Court wouldn't.

There was the Voting Rights Act case, Shelby County v. Holder. A case in which SCOTUS struck a provision in the Voting Rights Act as they declared it was unconstitutional. If you can declare a provision unconstitutional, what would stop SCOTUS from declaring an entire law unconstitutional?

We've already seen a SCOTUS decide it can do anything it wants.

The only way to get around the court is to amend the constitution itself.

That's not actually the case. The Constitution says this about the court system.

Article III - Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Emphasis mine. The inferior courts have jurisdiction over all matters other than "cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party." For those, SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. SCOTUS handles appeals to the judgements of the inferior courts "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

We do not need to amend the constitution to rein in SCOTUS. Congress, under the this article of the constitution, Congress has the authority to create legislation that limits the power of the supreme court on all matters other than "cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party." Congress can increase the size of the court allowing the current president to add judges. They can add term limits and other limits to SCOTUS. The problem is that one party doesn't want to fix the problem and that party is running the House and obstructing the Senate thanks to the filibuster rule. If we had a functioning Congress, we could pass regulations forcing the justices to abide by ethics rules. We could make it illegal for justices to accept gifts from billionaires.

Sadly, this will not happen without a Democratic controlled House and a Senate with at lease 60 actual Democratic Senators, and a Democrat in the White House. Still far more likely than a Constitutional Amendment, though.