this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
408 points (98.1% liked)

News

23387 readers
2755 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
408
Gorsuch urged to recuse himself from supreme court case over ties to oil baron (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Philip Anschutz has hosted rightwing justice at resort and stands to benefit if court strips power from federal regulatory agencies

Two days before oral arguments in a US supreme court case set to have a major impact on federal health and environmental regulation, a leading government watchdog called on Neil Gorsuch to recuse himself over close links to a billionaire oil baron who has hosted the rightwing justice at a mountain resort called Eagles Nest for weekends of dove shooting and who stands to benefit from the ruling at hand.

“Not only would overturning Chevron deference strip power from federal agencies, harming their ability to serve everyday Americans – but now, we know billionaire oil baron Philip Anschutz would score big from a favourable ruling by his friend on the high court,” said Caroline Ciccone, president of Accountable.US.

“It’s far past time for these justices to stop putting their billionaire pals over Americans. Recusal from cases where they have glaring conflicts of interest is the very least they can do to restore some semblance of credibility and integrity to our supreme court.”

…

But the case has much wider implications because it is thought likely to remove the Chevron deference, a principle named for a 1984 case involving the eponymous oil giant which established that federal agencies have the discretion to issue regulatory rules without congressional approval.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 85 points 10 months ago (3 children)

the days of recusal are over.

that any of these judges will now choose a moral path is kinda out the window. the bubble has been burst, we now know this court is corrupt, and so do they... with little recourse.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 51 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Waaa? Didn't you read the supreme court's real official and super enforceable and cool ethics standards they published in response to Thomas's million dollar modest vacations?

I'm sure the upstanding justices will LEAP to follow their own guidelines. /s

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

They were more like suggestions than standards

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (3 children)

There's six conservative extremists

I think we'll see recursals, because they can win without two of their votes.

And get to play up that they're not biased so the plebes stop complaining.

[–] ikapoz@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Personally I doubt it. While they don’t necessarily need every vote in the decision, recusal would reinforce the precedent that they have done anything inappropriate - not the tack they have been taking.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You gotta think like a Republican...

Not recusing now means people talk about the issue. And maybe something is done to fix it.

This just stalls so status quo can continue.

Like how Nixon created the EPA, it wasn't because he cared about the environment. It was the opposite. Congress was going to create an agency with the teeth to enforce regulations. So Nixon made the EPA and made sure it couldn't hold corporations accountable.

This recursal is just for optics so if people complain, they can deny there's even an issue.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Congress was going to create an agency with the teeth to enforce regulations. So Nixon made the EPA and made sure it couldn’t hold corporations accountable.

This is a bad take. There were already several federal agencies with some teeth, but their powers were hyper focused. The EPA was a consolidation of those agencies.

When the EPA was established and ratified by congress, it was super popular. It passed the house 401-21 and the senate 89-11. Being environmentally conscious was popular across the aisle. There were actually right wing eco terrorists if you can believe it (Ted Kaczynski). Under nixon, ford, and carter, the EPA saw massive expansions of power.

The reason the EPA became a bugbear of the right is Ronald Reagan. EPA was big government at it's finest and reagan hated that. Reagan was the super sellout to corporate America and Clinton wasn't a whole lot better with his "the era of big government is over".

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 9 points 10 months ago

ha, i didnt think about them just feigning recusals. of course!

what a bunch of terrible human beings.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Worse than that, they can all refuse themselves, prevent quorum from being reached, and force the lower court decision to be upheld.

https://www.newsweek.com/every-conservative-supreme-court-justice-skips-decision-rare-move-texas-1858711