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.
I could have been more clear on that. If 1/3 of homeless live in CA and CA makes up 1/10 the population, then CA has disproportionately high homeless population as compared the other states.
I was get at the point that there isn’t one cause for CA having this disparity, another commenter pointed out housing prices for one example. And that other parts of the country, even ones with harsh seasons, are still livable albeit not as hospitable.
I see people living homeless outside in New England daily, even in the winter. That discrepancy has to be fed by more than just weather.
They post all their reasonings for every opinion on supremecourt.gov
In this case the tldr is the 8th amendment is concerned with the method or kind of punishment. And here it’s a limited fine for 1st time offenders, a court order prohibiting camping in parks, then to a max of 30 days in jail for people who violate that order.
Here’s the link to the full text: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
Any one 40-60 yrs old with moderate politics and an unobjectionable personality supported by a major party would really cause a splash.
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.
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.
The Supreme Court even today has over twice the approval rating as Congress (that’s not saying much). Overthrowing one branch of government seems like a novel idea. There is a process for removing justices but it’s never been done before. Only one justice has been impeached, Samuel Chase, and he wasn’t even removed from the bench.
He/She looks like a younger Bernese Mountain Dog. Which is kind of interesting because the breed was dying off even in Switzerland around 1900 before efforts taken to re-establish the breed.
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
Chevron didn’t only apply in areas of niche expertise it also applied to the whole statute. Meaning questions on what words like “other” meant or questions like what a “reasonable measure” was couldn’t be heard by judges even though they normally decide those issues. The agencies like the DEA under Chevron could interpret criminal statutes to have new meaning without any legislative action.
Perhaps it’s culling was a bit much but it was far to broad.