this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
499 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19103 readers
3652 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

During a major hearing this week, the conservative justices made clear they’re about to gut the federal government’s power to regulate—and take that power for themselves.

The Supreme Court heard two consolidated cases yesterday that could reshape the legal landscape and, with them, the country. The cases take on Chevron deference—the idea that courts should defer to executive agencies when applying regulations passed by Congress. They’re the most important cases about democracy on the court’s docket this year, and I say that knowing full well that the court is also set to decide whether a raving, orange criminal can run again for president, and whether former presidents are immune from prosecution for their crimes in the first place.

That’s because what conservatives on the court are quietly trying to do is pull off the biggest judicial power grab since 1803, when it elevated itself to be the final arbiter of the Constitution in Marbury v. Madison. They’re trying to place their unelected, unaccountable policy preferences ahead of the laws made by the elected members of Congress or rules instituted by the president. If conservatives get their way, elections won’t really matter, because courts will be able to limit the scope of congressional regulation and the ability of presidents to enforce those regulations effectively. And the dumbest justice of all, alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh, basically said so during oral arguments.

I’m contractually obligated to tell you that the cases were technically about fees that fisheries are required to pay to federal observers. But all the justices talked about was Chevron deference. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor even bothered to mention the fish, three hours and 20 minutes into a three-and-a-half-hour hearing.

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 76 points 10 months ago (3 children)

duh

It is what they said they would do, now they are doing it, later they will brag about having done it, rinse & repeat with the next item on their agenda.

Liberals gonna liberate, while conservatives gonna ~~conserve~~ radically overthrow everything that has come before. It is no accident, it was the point all along.

Maybe RBG could have helped by stepping down, at her advanced age, rather than rolled the dice. Now surely Biden, in his own advanced age, will learn from that? Or, you know, we can roll the dice again I guess...

[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

How does Biden's age enter into this at all? That's what the vice president is for. It doesn't in any way equate to what happened with RGB.

Moreover, this is specifically about conservative justices, put in place through stolen judicial nominations, fucking the court system up.

And you decided to take that chance to whine about liberals?

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What are the odds that we roll "Snake Eyes" this many times in a row? The worst timeline.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I promise you: we will be absolutely shocked every. single. time. Shocked, shocked I say - SHOCKED!

Just like with school shootings - who knew that entirely ignoring the issue wouldn't completely solve it, or like do anything at all except allow it to fester? Shocked. I. Say. :-(

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The dice are weighted, I'm not sure why anyone is shocked.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 3 points 10 months ago

Bc media sells better that way.

Over the bodies of children.

[–] IMongoose@lemmy.world 54 points 10 months ago (3 children)
[–] FrankieFFunk@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Really a bad choice to let the insects take over our judiciary.

[–] spez@lemmy.l0l.city 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are you saying they're all locusts?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Their effect on civil rights and justice in general is analogous to the effect of a colossal swarm of locusts on fields of crops, yes.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

And here I thought they were lizards.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 10 months ago

In both 1803 and 2024, one of the broods that emerged was Brood XIX, also known as “The Great Southern Brood.” Coincidence? 🤔

[–] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 2 points 10 months ago

Electric Boogaloo

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Does anyone know if the "liberal media" is going to stop using terms like "originalists" without laughing in the face of those that use such terms?

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, at least when listening to NPR, they seem to always say that “originalism” is basically just an excuse.

Weekend edition this AM was literally saying that the conservatives were looking for a way to cripple the regulatory state and they’ve been trying to cherry pick cases and legal arguments to make that happen. The court isn’t trying to solve a fishing case, it picked a fishing case to achieve a political objective.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Well, good for them. Far too often I seem to hear the "liberal media" giving such a term serious consideration, when it should be openly mocked and ridiculed for the sham it is.

[–] pandapoo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

If you're talking about the mainstream press, then there is no "liberal" media, only neoliberal, and they usually remain pretty quiet on the issue of SCOTUS expanding corporate power. Which has been pretty nonstop since the 1970s, and those cases are usually decided somewhere between 7-2 and 9-0.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Yes, hence the scare quotes. I have yet to see evidence of this "liberal media" I've been told so much about (by reactionary extremists).

[–] SolarMech@slrpnk.net 6 points 10 months ago

Yes. They will start doing so when it is too late for that to help.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I really hate saying this, but it seems to be true: if it's a choice between maximum economic growth and democracy, liberals will grudgingly goose-step along the path to higher GDP.

Conservatives aren't any better, they'll cheer fascism on.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are any of the “liberal” media outlets actually arguing that this will be fantastic and great for economic growth?

CNN, NPR, BBC America, MSNBC are all talking about how this is a power grab for the courts and will be completely disruptive in terrible ways.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 9 points 10 months ago

They kind of sleepwalked into it, especially CNN and the NYT. They're still exceedingly unwilling to call out protofacism, still too eager to appear fair and balanced, and they're still allowing the right wing to set the agenda.

It'll be particularly tragic in a decade or so when the editors of the WaPo or NYT get defenestrated, and no amount of Hugh Hewitt fascist wster-carrying editorials will make the right wing respect them.

It's particularly horrifying to see regulatory institutions becoming gun-shy about doing their jobs because they're worried about a Republican AGs looking for precedent to further dismantle the regulatory state. The EPA is currently afraid to do its job, and the FCC, FDA and FTC are also being cautious. I can imagine the SEC and IRS are a little worried, too.

[–] Assman@sh.itjust.works 26 points 10 months ago

Pack the court

[–] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 10 months ago

And the dems are just going to let it happen too..

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

National criminal cartel plans to make it easier to crime. More at 11.

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I hope they get us free Tekron with all that Chevron deference.

[–] zuck@lemmy.l0l.city 3 points 10 months ago
[–] Reality_Suit@lemmy.one 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And when shit finally hits the fan, they'll be dealt with first. You guys really should watch this interesting documentary called "The Purge." It shows how the law and society can easily be balanced out.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

You don't need to watch a fantasy film.

We know what happens when you can't regulate already.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught-fire-least-dozen-times-no-one-cared-until-1969-180972444/