Supreme Court Overturning decades of precedent The court on Friday said federal agencies should largely follow its advice when interpreting and enforcing vague laws written by Congress, a 6-3 vote. Relentless v. Dept. of Commerce and 6-2 inches Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson overruled), effectively seizing the power of the agency.
This is a conservative court once again establishing a king over parliament and the executive in public life.
inside her runner dissentJustice Elena Kagan resoundingly condemned the court's majority opinion for its power grab and continued destruction of precedent. “Congress recognizes that it cannot, and in fact cannot, write a perfectly complete regulatory statute,” she said. “Congress recognizes that such statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that must be resolved by other actors and gaps that must be filled by other actors.” .” Kagan explained. “And Congress would normally prefer that that actor be the responsible body rather than the courts.”
There's a good reason. Just yesterday, Justice Neil Gorsuch demonstrated his expertise on clean air regulation. Mix “Nitrous oxide” (laughing gas) and pollutant-producing “nitrogen oxides”. Five timesAnd now these people will have the final say in ensuring the safety of our water, our air, our jobs, our food, and our drugs.
These two decisions also follow those made by the Conservatives on Wednesday. Snyder vs. USADeclared it legal. bribe a government official As long as the reward is given after the official does what the bribe taker wants, not before. As Jackson wrote in his dissent, it is an interpretation of the law “that only today’s courts could love.”
Combined with another ruling on Thursday SEC v. JarkesyThis court majority, which threatens to cede decades of executive power to federal agencies and hand that power over to the courts, is comprised of some of the most radical and corrupt people in generations.
Inside her runner In her dissent, Kagan continued to explain what was so dangerous in Friday's ruling.
Today, the courts flip the script. Now, when Congress exceeds its interpretive discretion, it is the courts (rather than the agencies) that wield the power. The law of judicial humility gives way to the law of judicial arrogance. […]
At once, today's majority gives itself exclusive authority over all unresolved issues concerning the meaning of regulatory law, no matter how expert or policy-driven. As if they had not had enough to do, the majority makes themselves the administrative tsar of the country. They defend the measure as being (suddenly) required by the (almost 80-year-old) Administrative Procedure Act. But this law does not require it. Today's decision is not dictated by the parliament. It is entirely the choice of the majority. […]
The rationale is ultimately this: the courts should have more say in the regulation of health care delivery, environmental protection, consumer product safety, and transportation system efficiency. Thus, long-standing precedents at the heart of administrative governance are becoming victims of a blatant assertion of judicial power. The majority despise restraint and seize power.
Kagan also cautions that “it is impossible to pretend that today’s decision is a one-off in its treatment of the agency or its treatment of precedent.”
Eli Mystal, a law enforcement reporter for The Nation, said: I left a comment.“Conservatives have now achieved their generational goals of overturning abortion, affirmative action and Chevron. If you think Obergefell and gay marriage won’t be next on the chopping block, you should read The New York Times.”
Related Stories:
The Supreme Court overturned a decades-old Chevron case, weakening federal regulators.
Right-wing billionaires are funding a new plan to destroy government.
Supreme Court's Small Fish Could Bite Regulatory Powers Big
campaign action