There’s a big difference between “I’m going to do a thing that clearly violates a law” and “I might start a company and if I do someone might ask me to do something I don’t want to do and I might get in trouble for saying no.”
Maybe you disagree. SCOTUS clearly disagrees with me. I just find it interesting that some times SCOTUS just has to stick to strict, narrow interpretations of the law, and other times they get to make exceptions.
I might use a different word than ‘interesting’
You can say “bullshit” on this site.
I was thinking of hypocrisy but that works too
And in somewhat amusing timing, the day before the decision was announced, a separate decision repeatedly referred to nitrous oxide when Gorsuch meant nitrogen oxide. Said error has been amended, but does not provide one with confidence that judges should be making detailed decisions about science.
If the Republican Party motto can be summed up as Make America 1950 again, then the SCOTUS motto can be summed up as Make America 1890 again.
Perhaps I should have posted these here.
https://community-new.goactuary.com/t/trump-arrest-watch/7604/1734?u=maphistos_sidekick
Thought about Chevron being overturned that I had today: Given the extent to which actuarial work is codified into law, most of us have probably run into situations in which the law itself is ambiguous and we have to rely on regulations for clarity. And often times dealing with regulators is annoying and frustrating because of things that they don’t understand despite expertise in the field. Now imagine that instead, those decisions are made by judges who have no expertise in the field.
I think that there is a reasonable argument to be made that current governmental regulators have too much power. But the solution is not to move that power to people with no expertise.
As a “pragmatic libertarian” I’m definitely not opposed to less regulation.
The Chevron verdict is probably one of the worst possible ways to have achieved that.
Sooooo many cases going to be filed in Amarillo, TX over the next few years.
Perhaps not if the case load is such that they have to appoint a new judge.
Of course, here’s a happy thought: a President is going to be asked to appoint a bunch of judges (and the Senate to confirm those appointments) to handle the increased caseloads.
I had to check. The number of “judgeships” is determined by Congress. So, yes, a trifecta can “pack” the lower courts if it likes.
I missed that SCOTUS extended the statute of limitations to sue for damages by regulations. Instead of clock starting when the regulation goes into effect, it now goes into effect the later of regulation date and incorporation date of plaintiff. You don’t like a regulation and the statute of limitations has expired? Find another company in similar situation that was established recently and pay their legal fees. (I’m assuming the decision doesn’t let you just create a subsidiary and have the subsidiary sue because that would be batshit crazy, but maybe we’ll find out about that too.)
https://thehill.com/business/4749468-supreme-court-rules-administrative-procedures-act/
That was my immediate assumption. Or give your business buddy a small loan of $5M to start their own company and immediately sue, then forgive the loan.
John Roberts really does think there are too few judges being employed by the federal government.
And Chief Justice Robert’s announces, " I’ll see your Warren court and raise you with the Mitch McConnel court." Then turning his cards face up on the table, showing a hand with 6 jokers.
Pass the chips his way. Read em and weep!
Chief Justice John Roberts at his confirmation hearing: “No one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law.” (Sept. 2005)
Guess John had a late term abortion of his prior opinion.
Yeah, I’m pretty disappointed in the justices. Is Trump blackmailing them? Or perhaps Putin is threatening their families???
