There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Mnemnosyne ,

You know, eventually, after we’ve seen enough of this shit, I feel like there’s a point we have to ask…will no one rid us of these turbulent justices?

KillingTimeItself ,

no, because they’re the supreme court, and they’re appointed for life.

timbuck2themoon ,

But hey, don’t vote for Biden because of a bad debate. After all, how much worse can more conservative justices be…

Not directed at you- just in general.

KillingTimeItself ,

so true bestie, so true

Mnemnosyne ,

I feel the reference went over your head…

KillingTimeItself ,

yea no it definitely did.

Crackhappy ,
@Crackhappy@lemmy.world avatar

No, because Biden doesn’t have the balls to put forward more justices. And yes, he could.

Adalast ,

What gets me is part of Project 2025 is planning on reclassifying all of the workers in the exact agencies this affects with sycophants and yes-men. As I understand it, the entire idea of that move is that Trump and the GOP can bypass Congress and the courts and essentially rule however they want.

Doesn’t this decision run counter to that? Instead of allowing the regulatory bodies that are going to be sycophantilized to just run shot over their domains, now the risk having a non-sympathetic judge or an unfavorable swing in voting in Congress?

Asafum ,

I think it’s for when the law is considered vague, they don’t rely on the “experts” in these positions to give an answer they let the SCOTUS decide now.

What project 2025 would want to do is ensure the day to day operations are kept in a “business friendly” manner too so if they control both I guess it’s just more ways for them to get what they want. :(

Fades ,

thus they can use the do-nothing republican fascists to shoot things down. fuck this goddamn country

SeattleRain ,

Noice, corporations about to have slaves soon.

SeattleRain ,

Ooooo I’m going to get to live in the cyberpunk dystopia that I’m such a fan of after all.

TwitchingCheese OP ,

I hear the mafia is looking for pizza delivery drivers.

DrSleepless ,

Oh boy, we’re fucked.

kebabslob ,

They did this immediately after Joe flubs the debate. Nobody’s afraid of him anymore lol

Ghostalmedia ,
@Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world avatar

Am I crazy for thinking that this is actually worse than the court banning abortion?

At least with abortion bans, people could see the direct impact and that could motivate voter turnout. This will be a decision that many voters won’t easily recognize as the cause of the corruption and injustice they will be feeling. A lot of people are going to get hurt, and they’re not going to know the real reason behind it.

The GOP finally got what they’ve been trying to get since the 80s. Get ready for The Jungle 2.0.

FireTower ,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

The GOP finally got what they’ve been trying to get since the 80s. Get ready for The Jungle 2.0.

The GOP wanted Chevron in the 80s. It was a way of tweaking laws passed already without legislative resistance.

In 1981, after Ronald Reagan became President, the EPA changed its interpretation of the word “source” in the law to mean only an entire plant or factory, not an individual building or machine.

lone_faerie ,

I mean that’s still what they want, absolute control. It’s just that as soon as Chevron started working against them, they got rid of it.

rayyy ,

It also opens the door to bribery.

dezmd ,
@dezmd@lemmy.world avatar

This is pure corruption.

spyd3r ,
@spyd3r@sh.itjust.works avatar

No it was pure corruption the way it was. Congress is supposed to write the laws, and the Judicial Branch is supposed to interpret those laws, not the unelected federal bureaucracy.

Spazz ,

Fucking conservatives

Neato ,
@Neato@ttrpg.network avatar

This also applies to law enforcement agencies like ice, right? Border patrol? They are all only able to enforce actual laws right?

FireTower ,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

Yes

PyroNeurosis ,

Yes, but they never followed that shit to begin with.

Rentlar ,

There’s one way to fix this… elect a landslide blue majority in the HoR and Senate and redefine explicitly the role of every federal agency. That way Republicans in the future can’t weaponize doing nothing as easily.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

Removing the filibuster so those things can be accomplished even if the Republicans have 41 Senators will also be necessary. That is what led to the minor improvements in the ACA instead of actually implementing something better like single payer healthcare.

Telodzrum ,

The Senate map is basically impossible this cycle.

Cosmonauticus ,

Because letting jackasses in congress set regulatory precedent on things they know jack shit about has always worked out

FireTower ,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

Things seemed to be going alright before the Reagan wanted to clarify the language of the Clean Air Act. The Congressional Research Services kinda cover this issue already.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

The goal is for regulations to be held up via congressional deadlock by the obstructionist party. Can’t make a good or bad decision if you can’t make a decision at all.

carbonari_sandwich ,

And this is a massive increase in authority for the courts. If there is ambiguity in the wording of a law, it’s open for a lawsuit.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

The dissent on the “it’s a gratuity, not a bribe lol” decision shows that ambiguity isn’t even necessary. Same with the bump stocks ruling. And seceral before that.

The conservatives will pretend there is ambiguity and write pages of rambling pseudo logic no matter how clear the law is.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

THE MULLAHS HAVE SPOKEN ON BEHALF OF ALLAH AND YOU SHALL FOLLOW THEIR PRONOUNCEMENTS!

JaymesRS ,

Stare Decisis is for losers.

tate ,

Dred Scott?

Sometimes precedent is plain wrong.

ETA: not in this instance though. This was a time they should have respected precedent.

JaymesRS ,

Yes, an incredibly racist ruling is a great comparison to dismantling the administrative state, removing personal healthcare choices, and regulatory authority.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

Dred Scott is the exception that proves the rule.

JaymesRS ,

It’s actually not, which makes it a worse response. It wasn’t overturned by a court which is what state decisis applies to (Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions.) Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th & 14th amendments.

FireTower ,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

The decision actually actually mentioned stare decisis on cases decided on the basis of Chevron:

The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful—including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself—are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite the Court’s change in interpretive methodology. See CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U. S. 442, 457. Mere reliance on Chevron cannot constitute a “ ‘special justification’ ” for overrulingsuch a holding.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/…/22-451_7m58.pdf

ChonkyOwlbear ,

YOLO court strikes again

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •