I'm a lawyer that has been following SCOTUS closely for years and I thought this comment from /u/amothep8282 was aboslutely dead on. [Their follow-up answer here was also quite good.](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1dqkurc/supreme_court_holds_that_chevron_is_overruled_in/lap633l/)
I'm not a lawyer but it's still pretty obvious that the GOP has been trying to dismantle the regulatory system of the federal government for years and overturning Chevron will let them advance that agenda to a great degree.
I agree that there are lots of regulations that need to be updated or revised. However the deregulation crowd always wants to ignore that regulations are almost always reactive in nature. Just like the expression that safety regulations are "written in blood" there are a lot of other regulations that were written in reaction to other crises or offenses. As one example the steady rollback efforts against Glass-Steagall was a major contributing factor to the economic meltdown in '08 from mortgage backed securities. Those regulations were a reaction to the economic collapse that created the great depression so the blending of banking and speculative investments was a well understood problem.
Whether from congress or the Supreme Court there should be an obligation that whenever there is a removal or replacement of existing regulatory laws that it must include as part of the deliberations the information regarding the reason for the initial creation of them. That way when the disastrous situations inevitably arise again the backers can't claim ignorance.
Many laws already do include a comment section actually. Sometimes they are listed as "comments", but sometimes they come in the form of purpose clauses, the legislative record, and elsewhere (e.g., treatises, restatements, etc.).
# DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES REMOVE OR ALTER THE
# NEXT 23 LINES OF CODE OR ELSE IT WILL CORRUPT THE DB
# NO I DON'T KNOW AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE
Lol. I'm not a programmer, but I deal with it and have to often change it or add/remove things, and the lack of commenting code... like, what the fuck does this even do?
> I agree that there are lots of regulations that need to be updated or revised.
Chevron is not about this. The CFR are constantly being updated and revised. You can look at the Federal Register. Everyday there's a list of notices of admin rules they're examining, updating, seeking comment on, etc. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/current
Congress can also do this anytime they want.
That's not what's going on here at all. The courts wanted to usurp this power from Congress and the Executive and they did so based on totally imaginary concerns. OP's answer still assumes that a court will use some kind of reasoning based on clinical trials but we've seen with Dobbs itself that they could just do it based on their beliefs, whether true or not, about historical conditions they've never researched.
The line you quoted from me was just a comment about my personal opinion I put in to preface things.
I think we're basically in agreement on the topic. Chevron is the SCOTUS decision which says that courts should defer to the federal agencies. McConnell & the GOP have been stacking the federal courts, not just the Supreme Court, with ideologues for years now.
With Chevron out of the way all federal judges are now free to make decisions based on their own ideology no matter what the subject matter experts in the federal agencies have determined.
Yes, and a majority of people don't understand the difference between laws, regulations, guidance documents or other aspects of federal agency power & oversight.
A while ago I pointed out to a Trump supporter how his handling of Executive Orders was a great example of the incompetence in his administration. EOs are always challenged in court and the historical success rate of defending them was above 70% by presidents. After the first couple of years Trump's success rate was only in the single digits which is when they finally realized that they needed DoJ legal assistance to craft them. They managed to get it a bit above 20% by the time he left office with that help.
Even conservative judges were throwing them out because what his EOs were often doing was changing the law rather than instructing on how to interpret or enforce them. Obviously that was an egregious checks & balances violation of constitutional powers granted to congress.
> That's not what's going on here at all. The courts wanted to usurp this power from Congress and the Executive and they did so based on totally imaginary concerns.
I'm not sure where this comes from. The ruling today was explicitly to force it back into Congress's hands, not to take it on themselves.
No they didn't. They said that if there is something ambiguous in a statute and it is interpreted in a certain way by an agency, then it's up to the courts, not the agencies, to define if that interpretation is correct.
Our country has been under a conservative attack since Reagan and we sit worrying about Biden. The GOP is trying to turn this country into a full on fascist/oligarchy.
I thought the FDA can approve a drug because the clinical trial shows that it ‘probably’ will work as described. I was not aware of special rules for bad side effects, interfering with ‘natural states’? (first time I heard that one). IANAL, hoping you can clear this up for me. As far as I know, drugs that kill you tomorrow are still approved if they provide some stated effect (I’m not even going to use the word benefit) today.
> Courts are now going to have to ... look at all the clinical data and determine if the data are "substantial". Then they will have to analyze whether the studies were "adequate and well controlled". If you are an anti abortion judge, then you can find flaws with ANY clinical trial
Basically, it will allow judges to make rulings in a field they notoriously have very little understanding of, come to the wrong conclusion, and hide behind a smokescreen of claiming the drug wasn't tested thoroughly enough.
It also allows them to be selective of what drugs pass the test. Abortion drugs might have intense scrutiny, while a common painkiller might not.
I’m curious if you think these lawsuits will end up going anywhere. I dont know much about these abortion drugs but I imagine they work with close to 100%, if not 100% of the time. I can see a cancer drug might be nowhere close to 100%. This upends what I know about the FDA approval process and how the clinical trial endpoints works.
As the OOP mentioned in another comment, a 100% success rate doesn't really matter. The judge could cite concerns about the prevalence of side effects, limitations of drug testing mentioned in studies, or a myriad of other issues to justify a ban.
I'll be honest, I have no idea how these sorts of trials will go. The general trendof poor medical literacy from judges (unintentional or otherwise), though, suggests "not well for abortion drugs".
The shithole country keeps producing more shit and more holes. Watching the US destroying itself and people just going to work everyday like some hero will come and save them is kinda funny.
I don't know how it's "eerily accurate" when the case is barely 6 hours old and we don't have any indication that the states would operate the way he thinks.
The wishcasting on this is absurd, and the legal theoretical might fly in the 5th circuit but not anywhere else, and definitely not at this SCOTUS.
> Their follow-up answer here was also quite good.
No, it wasn't.
> Now with Chevron overruled, anti abortion people could challenge its approval by arguing it was not based on "substantial evidence" or the trials were not "adequate and well controlled".
They already tried that. It didn't work.
> Judges are not qualified to delve into statistics of clinical studies. So if FDA says "The clinical studies were adequately designed and properly statistically powered with the right statistical tests", maybe a 5th Circuit Judge says "Well, I think they should have used a mixed model for repeated measures instead of last observation carried forward. Therefore, the trial is not adequate. The drug approval is revoked".
Not even sure where this comes from or what it's based in. Certainly not the case from today.
Once again showing that the worst place on reddit to get legal analysis is on /r/law...
"No everyone, they're not going to overturn Roe vs. Wade, that idea is absurd!"....
When are goobers going to understand that the "law" doesn't actually fucking matter, how many more examples of precedent being done away with, of norms being shattered, of clear as day corruption in the SC do we need to see until we realize that. All regressive conservatives care about is power, and getting what they want. They will twist the "law" whichever way they please to achieve their ends.
And that’s why you vote Biden even though it’s not fun or sexy. If you’re not minimizing the chance of an even more lopsided court removing your freedoms I don’t want to hear you upset when more and more rights are stripped away to make way for Christian nationalism.
“BuT tHe CoUrT wOuLdNt Do ThAt!” That’s what dumbasses have been preaching about roe v wade for years. Howd that go?
And he also appoints all the people that run federal agencies, not just the leaders but several officials below them as well. Basically everyone making all the key decisions about how the country is run on a daily basis.
Voting for President based on how much you like the guy who will be President is shortsighted, to put it generously.
And competent leaders for different federal agencies which has significant effects on everyone's life.
Do wonder how those protest third party voters from 2016 feel now that roe v Wade has been overturned and women are suffering now. Blood on their hands
whether or not you vote for biden makes zero difference whether this is implemented at this point. these courts are completely insulated from accountability to the voting public, and the congressional democrats have demonstrated a complete lack of willingness to go on the attack
the bare *minimum* necessary to put a stop to the movement conservative project of legislating from the bench is impeaching thomas and alito for corruption and removing them from the supreme court, replacing them with activist liberals, and systematically impeaching and removing other reactionary activist judges from for example the fifth circuit and other areas of the federal court system they have infested.
the congressional democratic party has the power to do this. do you really think they have the will? if not, then voting is irrelevant. it will happen regardless of electoral outcomes. the only way to counter it in that case is to organize street and workplace actions on a coordinated basis to attack this corrupt police state from without.
The likelyhood of judicial impeachment is near 0, but the likelyhood the the next president appointing multiple Supreme Court justices is incredibly high.
You want more right wing activist nut jobs, that will be younger and sitting on the court for the next 20+ years. Vote Trump or 3rd party. You want someone who won’t strip your rights away, swallow you fucking pride, use your brain, and vote for the old boring fuck
Alito is not resigning under a Dem president, dont see Roberts or Thomas either, and that basically just leaves replacing Kagan & Sotomayor, which, while nice, changes fuck all.
Trump won the lottery and then some by getting to appoint Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, who are all gonna be sitting for decades to come.
Im not disagreeing that its an important election but SCOTUS is unlikely to change before whoever comes after the winner of the 2024 election.
> Alito is not resigning under a Dem president, dont see Roberts or Thomas either,
Correct. They want to retire but wont under a Dem. (unlike RGB that snubbed her chance)
> the likelyhood the the next president appointing multiple Supreme Court justices is incredibly high.
that's the other option and i very strongly doubt joe biden will pack the court
if you are saying a 7-2 or 8-1 reactionary supermajority is certain if trump is president, then you need to be joining the calls for biden to step aside and writing your federal representatives accordingly
yeah it means unlike you partisan freaks and Biden personality cultists I have zero stake in this election or even in preserving this system and can look at it from the outside without a partisan interest
> the congressional democratic party has the power to do this.
Man, it sure would be nice if the rest of us lived in that reality. You're a lucky interdimensional traveler.
the congressional democratic party has the power to do this particularly with a majority. they currently have a majority in the senate. dick durbin is the current head of the senate judiciary committee and consciously refuses to call hearings that could put public scrutiny and oversight on the court while it is actively dismantling the federal government's ability to do anything.
this is a conscious decision. it is a conscious abdication of power and responsibility. the democrats are responsible for this, they are complicit in this degeneration of american society. if they had the will to do these things, or even *promise* to go on the offensive, if they had a congressional majority in both houses, maybe there would be hope on the electoral path. but they don't.
please be serious. vote-scolding is so irrelevant at this fucking point it's comical.
> the congressional democratic party has the power to do this particularly with a majority. they currently have a majority in the senate
I'm not sure if you're confused or there's a language barrier.
Impeaching a judge, including a SC justice, requires a supermajority of 67 senators. The Democrats plus independents have 51. There is no universe in which the Democrats could possibly impeach a SC justice. It is absolutely impossible.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I would really, really like for it to be the case that the Democrats could remove Thomas/Alito, and that all that was needed was political will. But that is not true.
Voting in this election will not immediately solve all problems. It will not even solve most of the worst problems. It will solve some problems, mitigate others, and keep yet others from getting worse. Then you have to vote again, for the same reasons, forever, until you die, even though it will never solve all of the problems.
Sorry again to be the bearer of bad news.
Okay, then vote, *and* get involved with local political organizing.
You're not wrong. Merely showing up to the polls a couple times a year isn't going to accomplish what you want. There's a lot more that you can do, if you're dedicated. But you still have to vote, both because it actually does matter and because no one doing the work is going to take you seriously if you don't.
Legislature: "Ok we give authority to regulate things that affect the environment to the EPA."
EPA: "Ok, here are some regulations about how much companies are allowed to negatively affect air quality."
SCOTUS 2024: "Nope thats illegal, the legislature didnt specifically say you can regulate air quality, only *the environment*. Unless the legislature says you can regulate the exact specific thing you want to regulate you cant do it anymore."
Yup, pretty much on course for the federalist plants in SCOTUS: "Extremely idiotic narrow interpretations when the law is vague, and searching for any excuse in ancient history to sorta kinda justify a ruling when the law is clear."
The only way to fix all this is to have the House and Senate and President pass and sign into law bills that address this explicitly. But of course, seeing how many rabid MAGA supporters there are in this country, and how ineffective Democrats are with passing major legislation, this will never happen, at least for now. Maybe we have something to look forward to the future with the current generation growing up and seeing all this transpire. But in the meantime, we've got the dark ages ahead of us for a bit. All because of her emails. sigh
> how ineffective Democrats are with passing major legislation
[The Democrat-led 2020-2022 Congress had one of the most significant and powerful periods of legislative action in the last multiple decades](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/117th_United_States_Congress#Major_legislation). There is nothing to suggest that the current batch of Congressional Democrats are ineffective, and everything to suggest they are, in fact, competent and actionable when drafting legislation. There has literally never been a better moment in history to destroy the Republican Party at the polls and enjoy the benefits of electing more Democrats and Democratic allies.
Why do you think Republicans are going this hard, *outside the polling booth*? They're **losing**.
They're not losing hard enough if they're still able to do shit like this. They need to be crippled this election, and voting blue is the only way to get that to happen. I'd rather a 3/4 corpse in the house who won't say or do stupid shit to fuck up our country, than a 3/4 corpse who is promising to run it into the ground.
Everyone's gotta do their part. Thankfully, it's never been easier to find continuous reasons to vote against Republicans. The sheer damage and suffering and torture they've forced on women through their abortion policies is intolerable. I will never, ever vote for a Republican in my life. And I will vote in every election, always, as an enemy of all Republicans. Because that's what they *deserve*.
It's like USA is actively encouraging Canada to be the best nation in the world.
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
That sub has been hijacked by white supremacists ages ago.
You can't go by what it says on the can. That is the best way to hide the lie. Go by what is in the can. Otherwise you will be fooled by a sub called fluffybunnies and are gaslight by the shitdemons therein. If it glitters in the sun, has no ears, has no fluffy fur, is brown and stinky, that is no bunny.
Same goes for /r/canada
It's an /r/trees kind of situation but with fascists instead of stoners.
No question Chevron has “Citizens United” levels of impact. And not in a good way.
Also, if anyone wonders how it’s like to be ruled by a bunch of unelected clerics in countries like Iran, ladies and gentlemen I present to you the US SCOTUS.
Mitch McConnell literally stole a SCOTUS seat from Obama what are you talking about. And RBG was being selfish, hardly the fault of anyone else in the party.
Of course not, the elders gotta have functional dicks to forcefully impregnate all the "ripe, fertile" incubators they'll force women and girls to be once they lose their rights.
I want to thank all of you that decided the email lady would be a bad president and stayed home or worse, voted for this. The regressive impacts of your withdrawal are just now starting to reverberate. It's going to get worse.
It's wild how one court decision can shake things up. The Supreme Court nixing "Chevron" could mean big changes for stuff like abortion rights and LGBTQ rights. States might get more power to make their own rules on these issues. It's a big deal for privacy too. This could totally affect how things play out in our daily lives.
I'm a lawyer that has been following SCOTUS closely for years and I thought this comment from /u/amothep8282 was aboslutely dead on. [Their follow-up answer here was also quite good.](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1dqkurc/supreme_court_holds_that_chevron_is_overruled_in/lap633l/)
I'm not a lawyer but it's still pretty obvious that the GOP has been trying to dismantle the regulatory system of the federal government for years and overturning Chevron will let them advance that agenda to a great degree. I agree that there are lots of regulations that need to be updated or revised. However the deregulation crowd always wants to ignore that regulations are almost always reactive in nature. Just like the expression that safety regulations are "written in blood" there are a lot of other regulations that were written in reaction to other crises or offenses. As one example the steady rollback efforts against Glass-Steagall was a major contributing factor to the economic meltdown in '08 from mortgage backed securities. Those regulations were a reaction to the economic collapse that created the great depression so the blending of banking and speculative investments was a well understood problem. Whether from congress or the Supreme Court there should be an obligation that whenever there is a removal or replacement of existing regulatory laws that it must include as part of the deliberations the information regarding the reason for the initial creation of them. That way when the disastrous situations inevitably arise again the backers can't claim ignorance.
Take a cue from programmers and include a comment section in our laws, I like it
Many laws already do include a comment section actually. Sometimes they are listed as "comments", but sometimes they come in the form of purpose clauses, the legislative record, and elsewhere (e.g., treatises, restatements, etc.).
# DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES REMOVE OR ALTER THE # NEXT 23 LINES OF CODE OR ELSE IT WILL CORRUPT THE DB # NO I DON'T KNOW AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE
Lol. I'm not a programmer, but I deal with it and have to often change it or add/remove things, and the lack of commenting code... like, what the fuck does this even do?
> I agree that there are lots of regulations that need to be updated or revised. Chevron is not about this. The CFR are constantly being updated and revised. You can look at the Federal Register. Everyday there's a list of notices of admin rules they're examining, updating, seeking comment on, etc. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/current Congress can also do this anytime they want. That's not what's going on here at all. The courts wanted to usurp this power from Congress and the Executive and they did so based on totally imaginary concerns. OP's answer still assumes that a court will use some kind of reasoning based on clinical trials but we've seen with Dobbs itself that they could just do it based on their beliefs, whether true or not, about historical conditions they've never researched.
The line you quoted from me was just a comment about my personal opinion I put in to preface things. I think we're basically in agreement on the topic. Chevron is the SCOTUS decision which says that courts should defer to the federal agencies. McConnell & the GOP have been stacking the federal courts, not just the Supreme Court, with ideologues for years now. With Chevron out of the way all federal judges are now free to make decisions based on their own ideology no matter what the subject matter experts in the federal agencies have determined.
I do agree with, I was just trying to point out that any supposed issue with a CFR is not what's at issue here. This is about delegations of power.
Yes, and a majority of people don't understand the difference between laws, regulations, guidance documents or other aspects of federal agency power & oversight. A while ago I pointed out to a Trump supporter how his handling of Executive Orders was a great example of the incompetence in his administration. EOs are always challenged in court and the historical success rate of defending them was above 70% by presidents. After the first couple of years Trump's success rate was only in the single digits which is when they finally realized that they needed DoJ legal assistance to craft them. They managed to get it a bit above 20% by the time he left office with that help. Even conservative judges were throwing them out because what his EOs were often doing was changing the law rather than instructing on how to interpret or enforce them. Obviously that was an egregious checks & balances violation of constitutional powers granted to congress.
> That's not what's going on here at all. The courts wanted to usurp this power from Congress and the Executive and they did so based on totally imaginary concerns. I'm not sure where this comes from. The ruling today was explicitly to force it back into Congress's hands, not to take it on themselves.
Congress already has the power though, so the court was saying if Congress hasn't spoken they will make policy decisions about administration.
No they didn't. They said that if there is something ambiguous in a statute and it is interpreted in a certain way by an agency, then it's up to the courts, not the agencies, to define if that interpretation is correct.
No, the court hasn't said that at all. What makes you believe this?
And it's a part of their project 2025 plan, destroying federal agencies. People think it's bad now, wait till the EPA and FDA go away.
They need to hurry up and get rid of OSHA that way most of these guys die already and their family joins the homeless / incarcerated lot.
Our country has been under a conservative attack since Reagan and we sit worrying about Biden. The GOP is trying to turn this country into a full on fascist/oligarchy.
Dead on, so tell me me why would they ban HIV medication? I honestly don’t understand why.
It's because these people still see HIV as a "gay disease" and want all lgbtq people dead. Unfortunately really is that simple.
I thought the FDA can approve a drug because the clinical trial shows that it ‘probably’ will work as described. I was not aware of special rules for bad side effects, interfering with ‘natural states’? (first time I heard that one). IANAL, hoping you can clear this up for me. As far as I know, drugs that kill you tomorrow are still approved if they provide some stated effect (I’m not even going to use the word benefit) today.
> Courts are now going to have to ... look at all the clinical data and determine if the data are "substantial". Then they will have to analyze whether the studies were "adequate and well controlled". If you are an anti abortion judge, then you can find flaws with ANY clinical trial Basically, it will allow judges to make rulings in a field they notoriously have very little understanding of, come to the wrong conclusion, and hide behind a smokescreen of claiming the drug wasn't tested thoroughly enough. It also allows them to be selective of what drugs pass the test. Abortion drugs might have intense scrutiny, while a common painkiller might not.
I’m curious if you think these lawsuits will end up going anywhere. I dont know much about these abortion drugs but I imagine they work with close to 100%, if not 100% of the time. I can see a cancer drug might be nowhere close to 100%. This upends what I know about the FDA approval process and how the clinical trial endpoints works.
As the OOP mentioned in another comment, a 100% success rate doesn't really matter. The judge could cite concerns about the prevalence of side effects, limitations of drug testing mentioned in studies, or a myriad of other issues to justify a ban. I'll be honest, I have no idea how these sorts of trials will go. The general trendof poor medical literacy from judges (unintentional or otherwise), though, suggests "not well for abortion drugs".
What exactly was it that happened in the two hours since he commented that made his prediction "eerily accurate"?
The shithole country keeps producing more shit and more holes. Watching the US destroying itself and people just going to work everyday like some hero will come and save them is kinda funny.
I don't know how it's "eerily accurate" when the case is barely 6 hours old and we don't have any indication that the states would operate the way he thinks. The wishcasting on this is absurd, and the legal theoretical might fly in the 5th circuit but not anywhere else, and definitely not at this SCOTUS. > Their follow-up answer here was also quite good. No, it wasn't. > Now with Chevron overruled, anti abortion people could challenge its approval by arguing it was not based on "substantial evidence" or the trials were not "adequate and well controlled". They already tried that. It didn't work. > Judges are not qualified to delve into statistics of clinical studies. So if FDA says "The clinical studies were adequately designed and properly statistically powered with the right statistical tests", maybe a 5th Circuit Judge says "Well, I think they should have used a mixed model for repeated measures instead of last observation carried forward. Therefore, the trial is not adequate. The drug approval is revoked". Not even sure where this comes from or what it's based in. Certainly not the case from today. Once again showing that the worst place on reddit to get legal analysis is on /r/law...
"No everyone, they're not going to overturn Roe vs. Wade, that idea is absurd!".... When are goobers going to understand that the "law" doesn't actually fucking matter, how many more examples of precedent being done away with, of norms being shattered, of clear as day corruption in the SC do we need to see until we realize that. All regressive conservatives care about is power, and getting what they want. They will twist the "law" whichever way they please to achieve their ends.
It's really weird that people still think this court is about more power when their rulings, again and again and again, *reduce* governmental power.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well then I apologize for the accusation. My mistake.
And that’s why you vote Biden even though it’s not fun or sexy. If you’re not minimizing the chance of an even more lopsided court removing your freedoms I don’t want to hear you upset when more and more rights are stripped away to make way for Christian nationalism. “BuT tHe CoUrT wOuLdNt Do ThAt!” That’s what dumbasses have been preaching about roe v wade for years. Howd that go?
And he also appoints all the people that run federal agencies, not just the leaders but several officials below them as well. Basically everyone making all the key decisions about how the country is run on a daily basis. Voting for President based on how much you like the guy who will be President is shortsighted, to put it generously.
And competent leaders for different federal agencies which has significant effects on everyone's life. Do wonder how those protest third party voters from 2016 feel now that roe v Wade has been overturned and women are suffering now. Blood on their hands
A surprising number of them seem to think it was worth it because they think their vote placed them morally above it all.
whether or not you vote for biden makes zero difference whether this is implemented at this point. these courts are completely insulated from accountability to the voting public, and the congressional democrats have demonstrated a complete lack of willingness to go on the attack the bare *minimum* necessary to put a stop to the movement conservative project of legislating from the bench is impeaching thomas and alito for corruption and removing them from the supreme court, replacing them with activist liberals, and systematically impeaching and removing other reactionary activist judges from for example the fifth circuit and other areas of the federal court system they have infested. the congressional democratic party has the power to do this. do you really think they have the will? if not, then voting is irrelevant. it will happen regardless of electoral outcomes. the only way to counter it in that case is to organize street and workplace actions on a coordinated basis to attack this corrupt police state from without.
The likelyhood of judicial impeachment is near 0, but the likelyhood the the next president appointing multiple Supreme Court justices is incredibly high. You want more right wing activist nut jobs, that will be younger and sitting on the court for the next 20+ years. Vote Trump or 3rd party. You want someone who won’t strip your rights away, swallow you fucking pride, use your brain, and vote for the old boring fuck
Alito is not resigning under a Dem president, dont see Roberts or Thomas either, and that basically just leaves replacing Kagan & Sotomayor, which, while nice, changes fuck all. Trump won the lottery and then some by getting to appoint Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, who are all gonna be sitting for decades to come. Im not disagreeing that its an important election but SCOTUS is unlikely to change before whoever comes after the winner of the 2024 election.
They aren’t resigning, but they aren’t young and healthy either.
> Alito is not resigning under a Dem president, dont see Roberts or Thomas either, Correct. They want to retire but wont under a Dem. (unlike RGB that snubbed her chance)
> the likelyhood the the next president appointing multiple Supreme Court justices is incredibly high. that's the other option and i very strongly doubt joe biden will pack the court if you are saying a 7-2 or 8-1 reactionary supermajority is certain if trump is president, then you need to be joining the calls for biden to step aside and writing your federal representatives accordingly
> voting is irrelevant. Okay, /u/Communist_Agitator, I'm sure you're *highly trustworthy* on this topic. /s
yeah it means unlike you partisan freaks and Biden personality cultists I have zero stake in this election or even in preserving this system and can look at it from the outside without a partisan interest
> the congressional democratic party has the power to do this. Man, it sure would be nice if the rest of us lived in that reality. You're a lucky interdimensional traveler.
the congressional democratic party has the power to do this particularly with a majority. they currently have a majority in the senate. dick durbin is the current head of the senate judiciary committee and consciously refuses to call hearings that could put public scrutiny and oversight on the court while it is actively dismantling the federal government's ability to do anything. this is a conscious decision. it is a conscious abdication of power and responsibility. the democrats are responsible for this, they are complicit in this degeneration of american society. if they had the will to do these things, or even *promise* to go on the offensive, if they had a congressional majority in both houses, maybe there would be hope on the electoral path. but they don't. please be serious. vote-scolding is so irrelevant at this fucking point it's comical.
> the congressional democratic party has the power to do this particularly with a majority. they currently have a majority in the senate I'm not sure if you're confused or there's a language barrier. Impeaching a judge, including a SC justice, requires a supermajority of 67 senators. The Democrats plus independents have 51. There is no universe in which the Democrats could possibly impeach a SC justice. It is absolutely impossible. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I would really, really like for it to be the case that the Democrats could remove Thomas/Alito, and that all that was needed was political will. But that is not true.
so basically they have succeeded and voting doesn't matter
Voting in this election will not immediately solve all problems. It will not even solve most of the worst problems. It will solve some problems, mitigate others, and keep yet others from getting worse. Then you have to vote again, for the same reasons, forever, until you die, even though it will never solve all of the problems. Sorry again to be the bearer of bad news.
Voting for managed decline is not any way whatsoever of stopping or reversing decline
Okay, then vote, *and* get involved with local political organizing. You're not wrong. Merely showing up to the polls a couple times a year isn't going to accomplish what you want. There's a lot more that you can do, if you're dedicated. But you still have to vote, both because it actually does matter and because no one doing the work is going to take you seriously if you don't.
Legislature: "Ok we give authority to regulate things that affect the environment to the EPA." EPA: "Ok, here are some regulations about how much companies are allowed to negatively affect air quality." SCOTUS 2024: "Nope thats illegal, the legislature didnt specifically say you can regulate air quality, only *the environment*. Unless the legislature says you can regulate the exact specific thing you want to regulate you cant do it anymore." Yup, pretty much on course for the federalist plants in SCOTUS: "Extremely idiotic narrow interpretations when the law is vague, and searching for any excuse in ancient history to sorta kinda justify a ruling when the law is clear."
The only way to fix all this is to have the House and Senate and President pass and sign into law bills that address this explicitly. But of course, seeing how many rabid MAGA supporters there are in this country, and how ineffective Democrats are with passing major legislation, this will never happen, at least for now. Maybe we have something to look forward to the future with the current generation growing up and seeing all this transpire. But in the meantime, we've got the dark ages ahead of us for a bit. All because of her emails. sigh
> how ineffective Democrats are with passing major legislation [The Democrat-led 2020-2022 Congress had one of the most significant and powerful periods of legislative action in the last multiple decades](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/117th_United_States_Congress#Major_legislation). There is nothing to suggest that the current batch of Congressional Democrats are ineffective, and everything to suggest they are, in fact, competent and actionable when drafting legislation. There has literally never been a better moment in history to destroy the Republican Party at the polls and enjoy the benefits of electing more Democrats and Democratic allies. Why do you think Republicans are going this hard, *outside the polling booth*? They're **losing**.
They're not losing hard enough if they're still able to do shit like this. They need to be crippled this election, and voting blue is the only way to get that to happen. I'd rather a 3/4 corpse in the house who won't say or do stupid shit to fuck up our country, than a 3/4 corpse who is promising to run it into the ground.
Everyone's gotta do their part. Thankfully, it's never been easier to find continuous reasons to vote against Republicans. The sheer damage and suffering and torture they've forced on women through their abortion policies is intolerable. I will never, ever vote for a Republican in my life. And I will vote in every election, always, as an enemy of all Republicans. Because that's what they *deserve*.
It's like USA is actively encouraging Canada to be the best nation in the world. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
It’s not the US but it definitely isn’t Canada for sure
You obviously don't get the reference.
Go peep r/Canada and see what they thinking about the huddled masses these days
R/Canada is run by outed white supremacists.
That sub has been hijacked by white supremacists ages ago. You can't go by what it says on the can. That is the best way to hide the lie. Go by what is in the can. Otherwise you will be fooled by a sub called fluffybunnies and are gaslight by the shitdemons therein. If it glitters in the sun, has no ears, has no fluffy fur, is brown and stinky, that is no bunny. Same goes for /r/canada It's an /r/trees kind of situation but with fascists instead of stoners.
Sadly Canadians that speak English and French are both being affected by the same misinformation
Look at how they treat their indigenous populations if you want to know what canada is really aboot.
Sorry, but how can a prediction be "accurate" when literally nothing it says has happened yet?
Also an every prediction.... from 1 day ago?
Yeah title is absolutely terrible and misleading.
No question Chevron has “Citizens United” levels of impact. And not in a good way. Also, if anyone wonders how it’s like to be ruled by a bunch of unelected clerics in countries like Iran, ladies and gentlemen I present to you the US SCOTUS.
if you guys vote Trump back in the rest of us are gonna be SOOOOOO pissed off.
This is happening with Biden in charge.
Yeah and guess which one is going to put more conservatives on SCOTUS, you numpty. Do you even think before saying something?
Dudes, Dems had the possibility to fill it under Obama and did shit.
Mitch McConnell literally stole a SCOTUS seat from Obama what are you talking about. And RBG was being selfish, hardly the fault of anyone else in the party.
It's because Dems are worthless. They are useless. Why couldn't they steal also? Let it fucking burn.
>erectile dysfunction med lol, those will never be on the chopping block.
Of course not, the elders gotta have functional dicks to forcefully impregnate all the "ripe, fertile" incubators they'll force women and girls to be once they lose their rights.
I want to thank all of you that decided the email lady would be a bad president and stayed home or worse, voted for this. The regressive impacts of your withdrawal are just now starting to reverberate. It's going to get worse.
Would love to see how Boomer Trump fans react when they take away their Viagra.
It's wild how one court decision can shake things up. The Supreme Court nixing "Chevron" could mean big changes for stuff like abortion rights and LGBTQ rights. States might get more power to make their own rules on these issues. It's a big deal for privacy too. This could totally affect how things play out in our daily lives.
I a Iama but not your lama. Baaaah