FireTower @ FireTower @lemmy.world

Posts

41

Comments

1,262

Joined

2 yr. ago

It isn't a new power necessarily. Judicial review has been around for a while. This just shifts back from when they granted the Executive branch a section of that power in the 80s.

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.

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.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf

Link to the opinion

I wouldn't be terribly shocked if a caveat was made for this kind of action. When you consider not just the inaction but them prohibiting parents from intervening you have materially different facts.

I don't see a massive change coming but perhaps a narrowly tailored ruling.

Key take away: The greatest threat to the winner of the next election is a strong breeze.

The moderation seems like the best since at least Obama was running.

If the United States supreme court (and really its legal system too) had any integrity, it would champion doing so.

I think most of the liberal justice would argue the court is and that's the problem. The keystone of Originalist philosophy is that judges should be impartial and leave policy decisions to the people (except when the constitution prohibits restrictions). To do that they are supposed to follow the original meaning, not the contemporary understanding.

In Living Constitutionalism judges are expected to apply their own personal standards and worry about the practical reproductions (that they for see).

There's a few like that and 'Breach of Peace' clearly designed as a catch all for the "It never occurred to us someone would do that" scenarios.

It's definitely rife for abuse, even if it is often used for more banal things.

Most Americans are keyed in on the intricacies of the Court. You can find a few polls showing this like this one where 1/10 of college graduates think Judge Judy has a chair at SCOTUS.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/judge-judy-supreme-court-poll/index.html

The poll used her real name, Judith Sheindlin, but still not a good look.

The classic example of correlation≠causation

For anyone interested in the changes in the Court here's a video of two of the former justices explaining the different perspectives between living constitutionalism and originalism. Right now there's a shift from one to the other. Just like there was a shift around the 50s.

https://youtu.be/jmv5Tz7w5pk

Tldr of the holding:

When the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.

Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859_1924.pdf

Edit: Here's the text of the 7th Amendment for non Americans

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

TLDR of the TLDR:

Court said the gov charged him with the wrong thing. Look for another charge, he's probably screwed.

Posted this in another thread on the issue but worth saying again because most people see to be confused as to the actual implications of this ruling:

Although a gratuity or reward offered and accepted by a state or local official after the official act may be unethical or illegal under other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate §666.

Tldr the ruling only was about in relation to one law. The party may be guilty of a form of corruption under a different law.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf

Read page 2 of the syllabus where it says "Held:" until page 4 if you want the shorter version.

Otherwise there's a 16 page explanation under the "opinion of the court" section directly after the syllabus, for those who are interested in a longer explanation.

Pretty good advice.

It's not terrible, maybe they could have gone broader but generally the Court sticks to narrow rulings.

Thanks for linking to the direct opinion. Not my first time hearing of the case but it is useful for going back to the actual holding. Kinda shocking IJ didn't, you'd think they'd want to post their W.

Gasp I say, Gasp!

In short it's typically limited to when judges make things up whole cloth, like qualified immunity, without legal basis. In judicial circles striking down laws or saying a law isn't applicable in a certain circumstance typically isn't regarded as legislating as they are ruling on the justness and applicability of an existing law rather than creating something wholely new.