Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote:

Held: [...] Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 0_n758.pdf

I'm too busy to look it up, but is this a narrow ruling or is Chevron dead?

Held: The Government’s rescission of [the Migrant Protection Protocols] did not violate section 1225 of the [Immigration and Nationality Act], and the October 29 [2021] Memoranda constituted final agency action.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 4_7l48.pdf

Roberts wrote it, and he and Kavanaugh crossed over to take this down.

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Held: [...] Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 0_n758.pdf

I'm too busy to look it up, but is this a narrow ruling or is Chevron dead?

The SCOTUSblog people are saying it was only mentioned four times, all by the dissent, so Chevron lives to see another day I guess. I'm still not sure if there are five votes to overturn it yet.

The major questions doctrine is so mendacious. Determining what are "decisions of vast economic and political significance" is entirely subjective, and it sets up this Court to use that subjectivity to restrain agency actions that Democrats like, but allow agency actions that Republicans like. Which is ironic in this case since it gets everyone to agree that AGW is a "decision of vast economic and political significance".

The right wing may have no need to overturn Chevron if they can get what they like by leveraging this doctrine.

Green Habit wrote:

Held: The Government’s rescission of [the Migrant Protection Protocols] did not violate section 1225 of the [Immigration and Nationality Act], and the October 29 [2021] Memoranda constituted final agency action.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 4_7l48.pdf

Roberts wrote it, and he and Kavanaugh crossed over to take this down.

So many rulings these last couple of weeks, but is this is the only one “conservatives” (or the right) didn’t win? Seems the right’s long game with the courts is really paying off for them. And what’s crazy to me is that the base will probably credit Trump since he appointed 3 of these justices, but continue to hate on Mitch McConnell even though he’s the one who made this happen for them (seems to me, anyway).

Final orders list is on fire: Sotomayor dissenting from denial of cert on a whole bunch of AEDPA and qualified immunity cases, and Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch massively pissing me off in suggesting that religious objections to vaccination must be granted.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_5he6.pdf

Dear 4/5,

Pack the Court.

Love,
B

Congrats and Good luck, Ketanji Brown Jackson

Dev wrote:

She kinda looks like Winnie Cooper.

That's not a very Christian outlook. Aren't you supposed to hate the sin, but love the sinner?

Also people who believe in demons are really scary. It feels like they could very easily become serial killers.

JuanHamm wrote:Also people who believe in demons are really scary. It feels like they could very easily become serial killers.

Or just kill their families, bury them in South Dakota, and then fly off to Hawaii.

Did anyone ever stumble across an objective, nonpartisan analysis of the Dobbs decision (overturning Roe)? Everything I've read seems to be an emotional appeal from one side or the other and not really cutting through the legalese of the opinions.

Bi_3 wrote:Did anyone ever stumble across an objective, nonpartisan analysis of the Dobbs decision (overturning Roe)? Everything I've read seems to be an emotional appeal from one side or the other and not really cutting through the legalese of the opinions.

Let me explain:

The "states" are weaker and more accountable to the will of their voters. The State (US government) should be dismantled so that no one on either side can use it to force its agenda on other peoples in far away regions. Do you want to live in a place with people that share your values, or are you just another missionary imperialist insisting that the entire world adopt your worldview?

"B-but what about muh slavery!? Don't you know states had slavery once!" I hear someone screech like a buffoon.

If your state decides slavery is legal again, move somewhere else, or just go burn down the governor's mansion. You would almost certainly have the power to do that, unlike now, where you're at the mercy of an unapproachably vast state that hates you and actively works against your interests.

"But what about muh rights?!"

You don't have rights, you have power. The State has power. Weaken state power and seek your own power.

Once we have to reversed the trend toward increasingly large globalist government (which includes corporations), then we can work on dismantling nationalism, then regionalism, then the city-states and so on, until the individual is free at last!

btw none of this will work.

I'm sure a woman forced to risk her life, health, emotional well-being, and financial standing to carry to term a potential life that she does not want will calm the fuck down once she understands how the 14th Amendment doesn't actually provide substantive due process protections for her right to privacy.

I have gained a new devotee!

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Did anyone ever stumble across an objective, nonpartisan analysis of the Dobbs decision (overturning Roe)? Everything I've read seems to be an emotional appeal from one side or the other and not really cutting through the legalese of the opinions.

Stuff You Should Know just did an episode called “A Dispassionate Look at Roe v Wade.” At the end they talk about last week’s ruling. It’s a good listen.

thanks for being the adult in the room.