Well, hence the thread title. it's literally a tyranny. There is no effective recourse to a court that behaves this way. The conservative judges are throwing legalism out the window, and are just making sh!t up to justify their opinions.
The courts are going to dismantle the regulatory state.
In the story you posted about the anti-vax Naval Officer what could the Judge possibly do if the top Navy brass simply ignored his decision? Would he send Federal Marshalls to arrest the Navy Chief of Staff or the Secretary of the Navy?
the dismantling of the regulatory state continues.
Now they don't even think they need to explain themselves.
A tyranny that can't be questioned.
JUST IN: The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 siding with red states against the Clean Water Act. Roberts joined liberals in dissent, but the conservative majority did not even issue an opinion explaining why they ruled the way they did.
— No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) April 6, 2022
the dismantling of the regulatory state continues.
Now they don't even think they need to explain themselves.
A tyranny that can't be questioned.
That's not quite right - SCOTUS allowed the Trump administration's deregulatory act to go into effect by staying the District Court's judgment pending appeal. But, at the end of the day, it is just another way to reach the same result of overturning 50 years of regulation.
the dismantling of the regulatory state continues.
Now they don't even think they need to explain themselves.
A tyranny that can't be questioned.
That's not quite right - SCOTUS allowed the Trump administration's deregulatory act to go into effect by staying the District Court's judgment pending appeal. But, at the end of the day, it is just another way to reach the same result of overturning 50 years of regulation.
not clear on what's not quite right? Are you saying there's still judicial action to be taken?
not clear on what's not quite right? Are you saying there's still judicial action to be taken?
Yes. This was just a stay of the District Court's order striking down the Trump rule (which was designed to let pollution run wild through the nation's water supply so a few people could make a few more bucks) pending the appeal to the Circuit Court and the resolution of any potential appeal to SCOTUS (when they'll gut the Clean Water Act).
not clear on what's not quite right? Are you saying there's still judicial action to be taken?
Yes. This was just a stay of the District Court's order striking down the Trump rule (which was designed to let pollution run wild through the nation's water supply so a few people could make a few more bucks) pending the appeal to the Circuit Court and the resolution of any potential appeal to SCOTUS (when they'll gut the Clean Water Act).
This is a "result oriented" legal theory. You decide the result you want and create the theory to reach that result as opposed to beginning with a neutral legal theory and seeing where it leads.
Anyway, the implication of this decision is that most (all?) agency enforcement power is unconstitutional. Which, in plain English, means that the federal government can't enforce a huge swath of regulations. I mean, this is basically striking down the administrative state.
I might be contaminating this thread by bringing up a State matter; I read earlier that California just ruled it unconstitutional to require company boards to have 1-3 female board members. Apparently this is against the anti-discrimination legislation not working within it as affirmation action. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61488736
Anyway, the implication of this decision is that most (all?) agency enforcement power is unconstitutional. Which, in plain English, means that the federal government can't enforce a huge swath of regulations. I mean, this is basically striking down the administrative state.
In the story you posted about the anti-vax Naval Officer what could the Judge possibly do if the top Navy brass simply ignored his decision? Would he send Federal Marshalls to arrest the Navy Chief of Staff or the Secretary of the Navy?
The executive branch is the enforcement arm. What happens if the Federal Marshall service refuses?
Justice and fairplay? Maybe, if you have a lot of money.
Its a country where people can be held for years before trial. Right now in Rikers Island we have 100's of prisoners held over a year with some held over two year awaiting trial.
Kalief Browder was held for three years before they dismissed charges.
It makes a joke of the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial.
Kalief Browder was sent to Rikers Island when he was 16 years old, accused of stealing a backpack. Though he never stood trial or was found guilty of any crime, he spent three years at the New York City jail complex.
Then we have forfeiture of property or money. They made it civil forfeiture so that the 5th Amendment prohibition against taking of your property is weakened. You are accused, they grab your stuff (vehicle or cash you're carrying) and its up to you to prove your innocence to get it back.
Two thirds of the population lives where government can stop you and search your vehicle without a warrant. When needed, probable cause or reasonable suspicion can justified via testilying. So there goes the fourth amendment.
Then there are your civil rights against police brutality. If there is no video or other witnesses then de facto is you have whatever rights the police decide. You are at their complete mercy. Even if there is video proof, then good luck getting justice considering qualified immunity.
One can only imagine what a hideous disappointment this decision is for wrongfully (or questionably) imprisoned people and their advocates. And who does it benefit? Seriously? I just don't get it at all.
And that’s why we changed federal governments. (Not because we thought they were bringing back the death penalty, but too much that needed investigation was being overlooked)
An Atlantic article and a law professor friend’s thoughts (he has them).
Section 1983 was new to me.
Ok, I have thoughts. Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan have an interesting piece up today arguing against judicial activism (you know they are against it because they call it judicial supremacy). 1/ https://t.co/fw2zbDx8UT
Well, hence the thread title. it's literally a tyranny. There is no effective recourse to a court that behaves this way. The conservative judges are throwing legalism out the window, and are just making sh!t up to justify their opinions.
The courts are going to dismantle the regulatory state.
I'm afraid we ain't seen nothing yet.