▲ 18 points
back
40 comments
Food regulation is one thing. What's stopping a sitting president from directing his party's governors across the states to appoint judges favorable to their politics (already happening the last 4-8 years). Wink wink, nudge nudge, they get "tipped" after the fact by big business XYZ (the supreme court ruled this is not considered a bribe) to do some terrible thing, sure, here you go.
It's long been an open secret that our politicians are for sale to the highest bidder but it's very difficult for me to understand how the mask can be this far off and people don't know, realize, or seem to care all that much.
Why bother with all that nonsense when the sitting president could just order all their executive agencies to change the rules or stop enforcing them entirely. The argument for the most recent decision is deferring to the enforcers about the extent of their powers is a bad move to when those powers are being challenged. We’re in a lot of the messes we’re in because a lot of our federal regulations aren’t laws, they are the whims of the president and their regulatory body heads, and are subject to change at any time with the stroke of a single pen.
For example, net neutrality was a thing, and then it wasn’t, and now it might be again, all in the span of about a decade and all because different presidents and FCC chairs had different opinions about the extent (and intent) of the powers of the FCC.
Or consider marijuana, still a schedule I drug per the DEA, yet by presidential decree, the DEA isn’t supposed to be spending effort enforcing that. Until I guess a new “tough on drugs” president comes into office. Or maybe until it’s politically expedient to enforce that law against some distributor. Maybe some grower in California or Colorado where it’s legal at the state level has done something to draw the ire of the president. Gosh wouldn’t you know it, the DEA decided it has some time to start enforcing those laws after all.
Trouble is, for people who do realize and care, there isn't much we can actually do. Our two party system is effectively preventing change through the established channels, and I'm not super interested in sustaining a life-altering injury in the process of protesting.
The two party system is a huge weak point.
Consider what it means for someone who wants, say, limited but substantial restrictions on abortions. Their choices are a low-restrictions party or a party that attempts to ban it entirely every chance they get. Where’s their representation on that issue? Doesn’t exist.
Further consider that if they decide one of those is closer to their position than the other, and they take that issue very seriously, they’re now stuck supporting the entire rest of that party’s agenda no matter how much they hate it, if they want to vote close to their own views on the issue.
Repeat for all other issues.
The system basically guarantees most voters don’t agree that much with the party they end up supporting. WTF.
And the only way to fix it is an uphill—scratch that, up mountain—battle against the two parties, since they benefit greatly from the current system.
[edit] it’s a weak point, to clarify, because it enables all kinds of bundling of terrible, unpopular, and even dangerous-to-democracy policies with other issues. It elevates those unpopular positions by holding other issues hostage, basically.
>> What's stopping a sitting president from directing his party's governors across the states to appoint judges favorable to their politics (already happening the last 4-8 years).
Nothing has ever stopped this except for the ability to vote these people out. In fact, voting for people that hold the same political values as you do and expecting them to advance those political values is literally the point of representative democracy.
There is a lot of fearmongering related to the Supreme Court's decisions recently, but a lot of it seems to take an issue with our political system generally rather than the specifics of the decisions. (And the entire discussion is hampered by everyone's inability to actually read and understand what the Supreme Court decisions actually say, leading to people just repeating their favorite news agency's talking points like you have here with the "supreme court ruled this isnt a bribe" insert.)
This kind of hand waving is extraordinarily counter productive. Yes, corruption has always existed in our political system. Now it's a legitimate political strategy and has been accelerating in demonstrable ways in the last 10 years, and these decisions add fuel to that fire. Hard to really argue otherwise.
With extensive rollbacks to the voting rights act, and the inherent power of money in political campaigns, it's very difficult to swallow the "just vote" argument as well. It clearly isn't working. Also, you cannot vote out appointed judges, including the ones sitting on the SC that are making decisions that impact hundreds of millions of people and sit for life.
It's always been a legitimate political strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine#In_the_histo...
I'd be interested in your basis for the statement that it's "accelerating." I'd go further and bet that your basis is more of a vibe rooted in recency bias.
Edit: And to your point about voting out judges - well, some would say that's a good thing, but more importantly most judges at the state level are usually voted in or have term limits along with recall procedures (so it's not even clear how your original hypothetical of a governor appointing sympathetic judges would work in practice since governors don't appoint judges usually, but whatever). We are talking about state judges, right?
I guess one of my points here is what I said before about fearmongering. You're out here posting about these hypothetical situations that you're afraid of trying to drive Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt when you apparently don't even know how the judicial system works (federal judges vs. state judges, elections vs. appointments, federal law vs. state law, etc.).
> since governors don't appoint judges usually,
https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_appointment_of_judges
Hope this is informative.
> You're out here posting about these hypothetical situations that you're afraid of trying to drive Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt when you apparently don't even know how the judicial system works (federal judges vs. state judges, elections vs. appointments, federal law vs. state law, etc.).
Besides the fact that this word salad makes zero sense, it seems you are not the one that understands how the judicial system works. There has been a party-wide effort of packing the courts for years now (aware this happens on both sides) - Bannon wrote and spoke extensively on this topic.
Information is free!
>> As of April 2024, five states—California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey—used this method at the state supreme court level and four states used this selection method for at least one type of court below the supreme court level.
So we're only concerned about this for a few blue states' courts (and even in those cases there might be an electoral backstop permitting removal). Got it. I guess the correct answer here is for those states to change their laws to be more democratic by subjecting their judiciaries to elections and by passing state laws that criminalize bribery by state and local officials?
I'm glad we both agree that the legitimate political strategy of corruption and sympathetic political appointments has been going on for years, and been used by both parties. But you still haven't shown that it's accelerated in the past decade.
Next thing you're going to tell me is that gerrymandering has only been a problem since the Democratic-Republicans started doing it!
You're doing the typical thing where you're attacking my specific example rather than the spirit of what I am saying - that I do not think it's a good thing that politically appointed judges can overrule federal agencies, particularly in a political environment where politicians are (legally) bought and sold to the highest bidder, typically large corporate interests.
I can come up with plenty of other hypotheticals for you to nitpick, but I find this discussion pointless and you obnoxious and clearly arguing in bad faith, so I won't.
It's always been a legitimate political strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_politics
In Chicago.
Now it's everywhere.
There were political norms that were followed. What stopped it from happening was an unwritten agreement to follow these rules. Those norms have been upended. New norms will form.
Chevron reversal is a high impact ruling that has slipped under the radar for most. Previously, the courts were to defer to the federal agency rules, unless they were egregious. Now, any rule can be challenged and the value set by a judge.
Legal experts expect an influx of cases, the consequences unknown but likely significant. Those with money can hire "expert witnesses" and pick favorable courts
Given where this court is heading it’s clear that they will require a level of specificity in the writing of laws granting regulatory authority to agencies that is impractical. This impracticality in part comes from the fact that Republican legislators are opposed to any regulations that might harm corporate profits.
Let's refresh everyone's memory.
Chevron won Chevron v. Natural Resource Defense Council. The case focused on what was meant by a 'source' of pollution as used in the Clean Air Act of 1963. The EPA was on the side of Chevron, and NRDC sued in the hopes that the court would interpret the law as they, rather than the EPA, interpreted it. The court deferred to the EPA.
So while you think you might want deference to the agency, sometimes it's nice to have a judge.
I'm using "Chevron" as short for "Chevron Doctrine" which established the deference to agency, some 40 years ago. With the reversal, who knows what will happen? We can be sure that both congress is unable to legislate effectively, and that the court systems are ill equipped by design, to deal with rapidly changing scientific developments and progress.
Parent poster knows what the Chevron Doctrine is, and is commenting on the outcome of the case which established it, which is mentioned by its full name in the second line of the webpage you linked.
One really shitty part was that they went “oh but this doesn’t invalidate past rulings, don’t worry” in that opinion…
But then, in another opinion they knew they were delivering this session when they finalized that, they removed the statute of limitations on challenging federal regulations, so actually it does mean they’re all (well, any that inconveniences a corporation) going to be reviewed without Chevron deference. They basically lied, all back-to-back so it was obvious.
This is understated and important.
The removal of the statue of limitations means that any new company that's formed can challenge any regulations that they are subject to, no matter when the regulation was formed.
Combined with Chevron's reversal and the increased power of the judiciary, well, I think it's going to paradoxically destroy the court system. Imagine the delays when thousands of companies sue to challenge millions of regulations.
This session was a big power grab for the courts all around. Even the apparent increase in power for the President—significant de jure, and very broad de facto immunity from the law—is largely an increase in power for the courts, since they may now selectively apply the law to a President.
The Supreme Court (ultimately) now decides not whether a President is guilty of, say, murder committed while in office, but whether they may even be tried for it.
Though, yeah, it’s gonna gum up the works in a big way. I wonder if they’ll see a budget increase and large increase in the number of (lower) court judges (so, new appointments) if the elections go a certain way in November.
We are reaching the libertarian dream. Polluters shall celebrate.
Far from it.
I'm a libertarian and an environmentalist. Pollution is harming other people just as clearly and directly as assault, rape or murder and so regulations against that harm still fit naturally and comfortably within even fairly extreme or hardline libertarian frameworks.
A law that says "You can't spray mace in someone's face" and a law that says "You can't spray <whatever other harmful chemical> in <the air that will eventually hit people's faces>" are ideologically the same.
Perhaps you meant it's a fascist, statist or autocratic dream? The people with power (economic, political, social) get to benefit while the people without power get harmed.
The libertarians I know are against regulation. Instead you are supposed to sue the party that has injured you. Good luck proving that you were injured for example by leaded gas. It's hard enough for a government agency with many lawyers and scientists to prove long term harm done by pollution. As the little guy you have no chance against a company with deep pockets who can buy as many expert witnesses and lawyers as needed.
It's going to backfire on the libertarian's massively. Environmentalists are going to weaponize Chevron and bring polluters into court in massive numbers. Judges now get to interpret Congress's vague rules instead of the agencies. Some judges will interpret in favor of the company, others in favor of the environmentalists. So companies will not have a clear idea what the actual regulations are. Uncertainty will reign, and uncertainty is bad for business, even worse than harsh but clear rules.
Except no this won't happen. They may try to bring polluters to courts, but the court system will be backlogged so they could pollute for years without consequences. And when they do get to court many many years from now, politically appointed judges will rule politically, not legally. That seems to be the standard now.
The politically appointed judges in many states are appointed by Democrats.
Also a case that is bogged down in the courts is in some ways worse because it is yet another source of uncertainty.
> The politically appointed judges in many states are appointed by Democrats.
And in many states they are appointed by republicans. Companies already venue shop to cases to get the judge they want. Why won't this continue to happen?
> a case that is bogged down in the courts is in some ways worse because it is yet another source of uncertainty.
It's not for the companies because while its bogged down, its business-as-usual. The longer they can delay, the better for them.
It'll be the environmental orgs bringing the cases that will be doing the venue shopping, not the corps.
> while its bogged down, its business-as-usual.
Uncertainty is bad for business.
You know Chevron won Chevron v. NRDC, right?
The judiciary agreeing with the regulatory agency once decades ago does not set a useful precedent. Well, it did, but that precedent was just revoked.
"Leaves scientific and public health matters to the personal views of judges."
Too bad courts can't do things like admit expert witnesses.
"Casts a chill on developing new regulations development."
Good! Things are ridiculously out of control. Just look at the fiasco going on around raw milk right now - and that's just the tip of the over-regulatory spear.
"For those of us wanting diets to be healthier and more sustainable, it’s a disaster waiting to happen"
Why? How does a lack of regulation prevent you from making your own informed, intelligent choices?
What a piece of crap fear mongering article.
> Just look at the fiasco going on around raw milk right now - and that's just the tip of the over-regulatory spear.
Can you refer me to the over-regulation of raw milk? (I hope that the FDA has at least some authority to regulate raw milk [1].)
> "For those of us wanting diets to be healthier and more sustainable, it’s a disaster waiting to happen"
> Why? How does a lack of regulation prevent you from making your own informed, intelligent choices?
There's more to diet than choosing which foods you eat. Regulations also control acceptable levels of pathogens in food, presence of chemical toxins in food and water, and accuracy of advertising and labeling [2].
[1] https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/dangers-r...
I see something like this quoted frequently in Chevron discussions:
“Leaves scientific and public health matters to the personal views of judges.”
Is this accurate? Or would the experts - currently sitting in regulatory bodies, or lobbying somewhere - transition to the courts, similar to how they are used in criminal cases?
Are the “batshit-but-here-for-life” edge case judges really going to be making decisions based on their personal non expert views? Sounds like negligence.
Exactly - courts will bring in experts.
All this hand wringing does is expose the statist who think everyone should defer to the "experts" and not think for themselves.
“When I use originalism,’ Thomas said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said everyone else, ‘whether you can make originalism mean so many different things.’