The tyranny of the judiciary

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.


Andrew Jackson once said of a Court decision he didn't like:

“JOHN MARSHALL HAS MADE HIS DECISION; NOW LET HIM ENFORCE IT.”

https://sustainatlanta.com/2015/04/02/remembering-the-time-andrew-jackson-decided-to-ignore-the-supreme-court-in-the-name-of-georgias-right-to-cherokee-land/

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? 


well, the problem is that if the government starts ignoring decisions, then all hell could break loose.

though I'd personally like to see it. maybe we need a little hell to shake us out of our complacency.


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.



drummerboy said:

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.


Steve said:

drummerboy said:

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?


drummerboy said:

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).


Steve said:

drummerboy said:

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).

gotcha

thanks


originalism  on the way out? Here comes "common good constitutionalism".

https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/common-good-constitutionalism-vermeule-blog/


Interesting. 

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.

There is really nothing new about this.


Another theory for those who are interested:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1337945

This may be more helpful (to those with a scholarly bent)

https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/neutral-principles


the beginning of the end of the regulatory 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


Hat tip to my law school prof friend, who retweeted this Atlantic article on nondelegation doctrine:

There’s No Historical Justification for One of the Most Dangerous Ideas in American Law


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/nondelegation-doctrine-orliginalism/612013/


drummerboy said:

the beginning of the end of the regulatory state?


Not when it comes to women's bodies.


STANV said:

Andrew Jackson once said of a Court decision he didn't like:

“JOHN MARSHALL HAS MADE HIS DECISION; NOW LET HIM ENFORCE IT.”

https://sustainatlanta.com/2015/04/02/remembering-the-time-andrew-jackson-decided-to-ignore-the-supreme-court-in-the-name-of-georgias-right-to-cherokee-land/

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?


But - but - how can they do this?? It seems to against everything I’ve ever read and seen about justice and fair play in the USA:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/may/23/us-supreme-court-prisoners-ineffective-counsel-challenges 


joanne said:

But - but - how can they do this?? It seems to against everything I’ve ever read and seen about justice and fair play in the USA:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/may/23/us-supreme-court-prisoners-ineffective-counsel-challenges 

justice and fair play were never real big here. we just talk a good game.


joanne said:

But - but - how can they do this?? It seems to against everything I’ve ever read and seen about justice and fair play in the USA:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/may/23/us-supreme-court-prisoners-ineffective-counsel-challenges 

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/nyregion/kalief-browder-held-at-rikers-island-for-3-years-without-trial-commits-suicide.html

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.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

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.

Do you need more examples?


tongue laugh 

drummerboy said:

joanne said:

But - but - how can they do this?? It seems to against everything I’ve ever read and seen about justice and fair play in the USA:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/may/23/us-supreme-court-prisoners-ineffective-counsel-challenges 

justice and fair play were never real big here. we just talk a good game.


Please don’t forget who was stacking the courts just couple of years ago. This is how they planned it out.


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.  tongue laugh tongue laugh tongue laugh


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)

Jaytee said:

Please don’t forget who was stacking the courts just couple of years ago. This is how they planned it out.

I’m having keyboard probs. Sigh. 


click this for the full, infuriating story


Should see some decisions today (and the rest of the week?).

Wonder what wonderful news SCOTUS has in store for us?


An Atlantic article and a law professor friend’s thoughts (he has them). 

Section 1983 was new to me.


holy blank, back to 1973 for Roe, back to 1966 for Miranda?  What's next?  Gideon 1963? Brown 1954?  This was not what we had in mind at all.  gulp


mjc said:

holy blank, back to 1973 for Roe, back to 1966 for Miranda?  What's next?  Gideon 1963? Brown 1954?  This was not what we had in mind at all. 
gulp

Don't forget Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford.


is there even a separation of church and state any more?


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.