UPDATE: There are only 2 boxes, we're told, and that means a maximum of 4 opinions.
UPDATE 2: Grants Pass v. Johnson. Gorsuch. 6-3... the usual lineup. "The court holds that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment' barred by the Eighth Amendment."
UPDATE 3: Chevron is overruled! The Chief writes the opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v Secretary of Commerce. "Chevron, Roberts explains, 'defies the command of' the Administrative Procedure Act, the law governing federal administrative agencies, 'that the reviewing court--not the agency whose action it reviews--is to decide all relevant questions of law and interpret ... statutory provisions. It requires a court to ignore, not follow, the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA.'... Roberts notes that today's decision does 'not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework... including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself...'" From the Kagan dissent: "Congress knows that it does not--in fact cannot--write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve, and gaps that some other actor will have to fill. And it would usually prefer that actor to be the responsible agency, not a court."
UPDATE 4: If there are 2 more cases, there are 2 more Roberts-written cases. There's only one more case. The last case today is Fischer. Another 6-3 case written by Roberts. SCOTUSblog writes: "This was a case about whether a federal law that makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct congressional inquiries and investigations can be used to prosecute participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. The question comes to the court in the case of a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6. ... The court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so."
UPDATE 5: The 6-3 in Fischer is not the usual 6-3. Barrett joins the dissenters and Jackson is in the majority. Jackson's concurrence refers to the "shocking circumstances" of January 6th.
UPDATE 6: Headline at The Washington Post: "Supreme Court says prosecutors improperly charged hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters/Supreme Court’s decision on obstruction charge will impact trials of hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters and, potentially, former president Donald Trump."
UPDATE 5: The Court announced that there will be one more opinion day, Monday.
Posts
85 comments:
So every single Democrat appointee to the SCOTUS views enforcement of bans on camping in public spaces as "cruel and unusual punishment"? The USA can't afford to see any more Democrat appointments to SCOTUS form 50 years.
The chief hasn't announced yet whether its the last day.
My mind went straight to Biden. Then again, I don't think anybody has ever called Joe chief.
Althouse got Biden in on some-kind-of-FIRE watch. The-Idea-FIRE?
(FIRE = financial independence, retire early.)
YAY! Grants Pass, baby! That means the tents gotta go ... Y'all have no idea how creepy my walk is with those zombies walking around.
This decision will be a big deal here in Montana, especially within the college/liberal enclaves where homeless encampments have been contentious issues for some time. Progressive politicians may finally have their "fig leaf" to cover their indecisiveness.
"UPDATE 3: Chevron is overruled!"
Was it significantly different than the SEC case yesterday?
Looking for the TLDR here while at work.
This is the most important thing to happen since they pulled the coup and rigged the 2020 election.
Great news re:Grants Pass!
Huge news!!!
Chevron overruled!
About time. It was always wrong, but the evolution of federal agencies in the direction of (mis)interpreting laws in the direction of regulations tailored to support left wing politics has made it critical to get rid of Chevron.
Ha. The Court opines that after all, imposing a fine or 30 day jail sentence is *not quite* like the drawing and quartering, burning alive etc intended by the drafters to be prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
6-2 on overruling Chevron. Jackson didn’t participate in the decision.
Chevron was an incompetent jurisprudential doctrine of statutory interpretation based on the concern the judiciary is more incompetent than the administrative state. To that end, it was only correct if it was correct....
That’s all we need from you today, Chief. Just raise your hand up.
My mind went straight to Biden. Then again, I don't think anybody has ever called Joe chief.
===================
don't "The President's Own" United States Marine Band play "hail to the chief" anymore?
While it is good to see Chevron be overturned, the Left will not care- the bureaucracy will continue to do what they have increasingly done for the last 40 years and with over half of the judiciary Democrat appointed every single case will have to have SCOTUS correct a district/appeals court not applying the new standard.
The Democrat Party representatives dissented on overturning Chevron saying bureaucracy uber alles.
Summary of major SCt decisions this term:
'Legislative branch, you have to do your job.'
'Judicial branch, you have to do your job.'
'Executive branch, you're not allowed to do their jobs.'
Now, if the SCt would only revive the non-delegation doctrine . . .
Grants Pass v. Johnson. Gorsuch. 6-3... the usual lineup
Except it hasn't actually been teh "usual lineup", it's been pretty rare.
It's teh expected lineup in the result, but not the usual one
Boy oh boy. If John Roberts is backing sane policy, it means he can feel which way the wind is blowing. The liberals are going to be melting down all day.
"Congress knows that it does not--in fact cannot--write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve, and gaps that some other actor will have to fill. And it would usually prefer that actor to be the responsible agency, not a court."
Then stop writing regulations.
If you can't do it legally, don't do it. We'll let the States do it, not the Feds.
And WHY would they prefer unelectable and unaccountable bureaucrats to be the deciders? because that means they get to avoid responsibility for their choices?
Sorry, that's being an enemy of democracy
Fischer:
To prove a violation of §1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.
Today is a clean sweep for the good guys
Note, Fischer is 6-3
But Jackson and Barrett flipped sides
On the night Antonin Scalia died, I turned to my husband and said: "Maybe God doesn't love America". But 8 months later, Hillary was defeated in an election where the Supreme Court hung in the balance and perhaps it was all part of some sort of grand plan. Or not. But Mitch McConnel is my hero.
Ugly, bitter fights over Gorsuch and then Kavanaugh. And then Ruth kicked the bucket - just in time for Trump to appoint ACB. When Barrett provided the sixth vote for the critical cases regarding major Constitutional issues (such as Dobbs, Grants Pass and Loper) I began to sleep well at night knowing that for a few more years, we had a court on the side of freedom.
Yeah, I kinda think God does still care about America. He certainly doesn’t hate it.
For some reason I expected Gorsuch to write the Chevron one.
Congress knows that it does not--in fact cannot--write perfectly complete regulatory statutes
Kagan is starting to remind me of Justice O'Connor, who used to wax eloquent about her personal opinions and then conclude "that is why the constitution demands..." or "that is why the constitution forbids..."
Great news on Jan 6 obstruction horseshit!
YUGE!!
Chevron is overruled but no relief from EPA?
we made a mistake but not that mistake?
why not at least a late remand back to wherever that came from?
SweatBee said...
For some reason I expected Gorsuch to write the Chevron one.
Roberts wanted control of the scope...
The 6-3 in Fischer is not the usual 6-3. Barrett joins the dissenters and Jackson is in the majority. Jackson's concurrence refers to the "shocking circumstances" of January 6th.
Jackson may be a social justice warrior but perhaps Roberts has been able to tutor her as to how the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) protects everyone's rights, not just the favored elite.
The 6-3 in Fischer is not the usual 6-3. Barrett joins the dissenters and Jackson is in the majority. Jackson's concurrence refers to the "shocking circumstances" of January 6th.
Jackson may be a social justice warrior but perhaps Roberts has been able to tutor her as to how the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) protects everyone's rights, not just the favored elite.
After a quick perusal of these decisions, I do believe the majority of the Supremes are finally tired of the lobbyists of both sides writing the nation’s laws.
This is spot on: Thank you, another old lawyer
Summary of major SCt decisions this term:
'Legislative branch, you have to do your job.'
'Judicial branch, you have to do your job.'
'Executive branch, you're not allowed to do their jobs.'
Now, if the SCt would only revive the non-delegation doctrine”
It’s been a tough few hours for the left…
Narayanan said...
Chevron is overruled but no relief from EPA?
Ohio vs EPA was decided for Ohio.
What cases have come down that justify your complaint?
WOW. Big wins for freedom.
I saw it on a comment on Insty. I had not seen Fischer or Homeless ban decisions so I had to research it.
Here is the comment.
"So much winning.
• The debate exposes Biden is a dementia-addled old man
• The Supreme Court overrules Chevron deference
• The Supreme Court overrules obstruction charges for J6 defendants
• The Supreme Court overrules the right of the homeless to camp on public property"
Kathryn51 said...
Jackson may be a social justice warrior but perhaps Roberts has been able to tutor her as to how the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) protects everyone's rights, not just the favored elite.
Jackson's been pretty consistently in favor of not violating defendants' rights, even when she doesn't like the defendants.
Now, I don't know what she would have done is she'd been the deciding vote. But since there were 5 solid votes for the defendants, I think it was an easy choice for her
FWIW, Steve Hayward at PowerLine often points out that Chevron was also considered a big win at the time the decision came out because it transferred rule making power from Congress dominated by Democrats from the 1930s and courts which had similarly been dominated by Democrat appointees reaching back to the FDR administration, and put it in the hands of Executive branch officials who were more responsive to GOP Presidents and Congressional leaders. Maybe a bit of an example of being careful what you wish for.
So, there was no conference yesterday, so there will be no Orders released Monday
However, it's on the list as an opinion release day
I expect that will be the final opinion release day
Nice summary, GatorNavy
The Fascist Merrick Garland got his ass handed to him today.
How is it possible that a city can't have a "no camping" ordinance, Amy?
I'm not interested enough to read the bullshit because, really?
"Congress knows that it does not--in fact cannot--write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve, and gaps that some other actor will have to fill. And it would usually prefer that actor to be the responsible agency, not a court."
Who does Kagan think can perfectly administer imperfectly conceived statues? Bureaucrats? The guys and gals protected from the sort of commonplace disciplinary actions practiced routinely in the private sector? What constrains the typical administrative agency employee from abusing the citizenry? Not the law as it stands. It's virtually impossible to fire a federal civil servant, consequently, the regulatory agencies have become a haven for the personality types who would have made willing and enthusiastic KZ guards for the Third Reich.
Kagan's dissent ought to remind the members of Congress to conquer their urge to legislate. No government serves a free republic by being busy, nor should we judge a Congress by the number of bills it passes. Anyone who campaigns against the status quo by pointing an accusing finger at a "go-nothing Congress" ought to be nailed to something. Circumspection ought to be the watchword in Congress. Is a proposed legislation imperfect? Then vote Nay, fer chrissake!
Part of the discrediting of the court system is the interminable, self indulgent opinions.
I clerked for a highly regarded Senior U.S. District Court Judge. I'm fairly certain if I had presented him with a 15+ page, single spaced draft opinion, I'd have been defending myself and not just the opinion. Of course, in those days words meant things and the subjective imagination of the judge or clerk didn't count for anything.
It's good to see Justice Jackson break with the left on Fischer. We can hope that she will come to decide more often by the law rather than by the desired outcome.
SCOTUS has done a lot this week to restore our individual rights. The SEC "trial by jury" decision and the elimination of Chevron make up for dropping the ball on social media censorship. That one will return I am sure.
(Typo: UPDATE 7, not 5-twice)
Nice for Kagan to admit that she wants unelected, unfireable bureaucrats to write laws, and then prevent the court from reviewing their actions. She might as well rule in favor of making her god-king.
Chevron was also considered a big win at the time the decision came out because it transferred rule making power from Congress dominated by Democrats from the 1930s and courts which had similarly been dominated by Democrat appointees reaching back to the FDR administration, and put it in the hands of Executive branch officials who were more responsive to GOP Presidents and Congressional leaders.
That was a time when government bureaucrats represented a reasonable cross section of the American political spectrum, and did not see their lifelong sinecures as primarily a deep-cover termite burrow from which to promote their far-left ideology.
I'd be willing to grant the bureaucracy a bit more benefit of the doubt if we revised the Civil Service Act to move political appointees several levels lower in the hierarchy. No one wants every janitor or meat inspector or forest ranger to have to swear fealty to the party in power, and lose their jobs when the political winds shift. But a surprising amount of leftist mischief can be done under the radar by mid-level ideologues, beginning at the GS-6 level or thereabouts. Perhaps a compromise allowing the President to choose no more than 20% of the GS-6 to GS-12 cadre for termination in each year, pour encourager les autres.
So who is supposed to advise on ambiguous cases then, if not the experts? Will all judges now be expected to be experts in insider trading and the chemistry of toxic heavy metals?
They're already supposed to be experts on all aspects of 18th century history so why not add something else?
Richie: "So who is supposed to advise on ambiguous cases then, if not the experts? Will all judges now be expected to be experts in insider trading and the chemistry of toxic heavy metals?
They're already supposed to be experts on all aspects of 18th century history so why not add something else?"
Aw Richie, did somebody pee in your (Democratic) Cheerios? Between the Biden debacle and the decisions by the Supremes, it looks like your daily talking points may be getting a little thin and worn. Cheer up, you can man the barricades after Trump is elected!
Kagan is irrelevant nowadays.
Her much touted people skills were overrated.
She’s bright like Breyer was but doesn’t have his even keeled manner. And yet she’s still a bore.
I look forward to Trump replacing her, Sotomayor, and Roberts.
Rich: So who is supposed to advise on ambiguous cases then, if not the experts? Will all judges now be expected to be experts in insider trading and the chemistry of toxic heavy metals?
What experts?
"So who is supposed to advise on ambiguous cases then, if not the experts? Will all judges now be expected to be experts in insider trading and the chemistry of toxic heavy metals?"
I don't know, Rich, perhaps Congress can take up the ambiguous cases and pass some clear fucking laws to guide the Executive Branch. This is what SCOTUS did this morning- make Congress do their fucking job rather than pass ambiguous shit and let unelected bureaucrats pass the details of the law.
Might this not also mean that the actual law makers are more "on the hook" for what is regulated and how?
So who is supposed to advise on ambiguous cases then, if not the experts? Will all judges now be expected to be experts in insider trading and the chemistry of toxic heavy metals?
Of course not, you nincompoop. The experts in each government department should come up with PROPOSALS for useful and appropriate regulations. That is their job. Once or twice a year they forward a package of them to the relevant committees of each house of Congress.
The committees review the proposed regulations, decide on appropriate enforcement mechanisms and penalties, bundle the non-controversial ones for an omnibus vote, split out the controversial or particularly expensive proposals for individual votes, then once the winning proposals have passed out of committee they go to the entire Congress for approval or rejection.
When a case brought under such regulations comes before a judge, the judge should follow the black-letter law, which the regulations will now be. The rule of lenity should apply to the marginal cases.
That is manifestly how it ought to work in a so-called "democracy", and how it used to work for most of our history. Then came Wilson and FDR and the exaltation of the administrative state.
Well, fuck the administrative state. Our great Supreme Court just drove a stake through the heart of those arrogant leftist bastards.
And this really has nothing to do with Trump. If you were the lifelong Republican you sometimes pretend to be, you would be celebrating the death of Chevron right alongside the rest of us.
FMV writes: “Aw Richie, did somebody pee in your (Democratic) Cheerios?”
If US democracy is on the line, why did it take AG Merrick Garland 2 years, 5 months to bring indictments in Washington DC, the scene of the riot, in federal district court and 2 years, 7 months on the classified documents in the Florida federal district court? Both sets of crimes occurred in broad daylight!
Is the attorney general of the United States competent at administering justice?
The dilatory administration of justice follows the Department of Defense's ineptly executed withdrawal from Afghanistan despite having months if not years of notice that the withdrawal was to occur. Was the defense secretary or any other responsible officials removed or reprimanded for poor execution of responsibilities and duties? Aren't formulation and execution of plans benchmarks for fitness assessments?
The national security adviser and his organization have formulated and executed an ill-thought out plan of too little and too late concerning the supply of capable armaments to the Ukraine, allowing the Ukrainians to fight and die in defense but not have the opportunity to move forward and try to end the war on more favorable terms. After the failure of the Ukrainian counteroffensive in the summer of 2023, why were not replacements made in the national security council and department of defense? Washington officials are invaluable and Ukrainian fighters are expendable?
Former British PM David Lloyd George castigated Neville Chamberlain in the House of Commons observing that in each confrontation with Adolf Hitler that Chamberlain had been "worsted" by the adversary and that Britain needed a leader who could master the situation, not be a captive to it.
Joe Biden has mostly beaten Joe Biden. He has proven himself politically maladroit and as a leader too often inadequate and incapable. For now, Trump remains something of a beneficiary of Biden and the Biden administration's weaknesses. One senses this weakness is at the very top.
Rich said...
"Might this not also mean that the actual law makers are more "on the hook" for what is regulated and how?"
You mean have responsibility for the rules they make? Yeah. That's how it's supposed to work in our constitutional republic.
Rich: "If US democracy is on the line, why did it take AG Merrick Garland 2 years, 5 months to bring indictments in Washington DC, the scene of the riot, in federal district court and 2 years, 7 months on the classified documents in the Florida federal district court? Both sets of crimes occurred in broad daylight!"
LOL
It was timed to interfere with the election.
Rich: "After the failure of the Ukrainian counteroffensive in the summer of 2023, why were not replacements made in the national security council and department of defense?"
LOL
There was no "counteroffensive". There was some limited maneuvering and skirmishing designed to impress the impressionable child-adults of the West (congrats, you qualify) in order to get far more funding (for their Ukrainian salaries, 401k's, social security, money laundering opportunities for the establishment/dems, etc).
Rich: "Washington officials are invaluable and Ukrainian fighters are expendable?"
Sweet Jesus. It's like you just emerged from the womb!
"Kagan's dissent ought to remind the members of Congress to conquer their urge to legislate. No government serves a free republic by being busy, nor should we judge a Congress by the number of bills it passes."
The federal government has been passing laws for around 250 years. Seems like we should probably have enough by now.
Obviously, the overruling of the Chevron-deference doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises was by far the most important decision of the day. And while I don't take any great offense with the decision, just as it was with the Dobbs decision I think that while it is a victory for FedSoc/ideologue lawyers, it may be a nightmare for GOP electoral politics. The decision basically puts all kinds of pressure on the House and Senate to actually do something for a change.
The decision that worried me most immediately was Fischer. In particular, whether it would sidetrack the DC prosecution of Trump, and whether it would upset a great many J6 convictions and ongoing prosecutions. I was relieved to read this helpful essay at Just Security's home page; The Limited Effects of Fischer: DOJ Data Reveals Supreme Court’s Narrowing of Jan. 6th Obstruction Charges Will Have Minimal Impact.
Fischer is not going to get Trump off.
Rich said...
So who is supposed to advise on ambiguous cases then, if not the experts? Will all judges now be expected to be experts in insider trading and the chemistry of toxic heavy metals?
Gee, Rich, I guess teh agency is going to have to make a ruling that's actually in accordance with the law and facts, and then use the superiority of their position to win in court.
What's that? They rule based on their personal political desires, NOT based on reality?
Gee, such a shame they're going to lose.
Rich said...
Might this not also mean that the actual law makers are more "on the hook" for what is regulated and how?
Why yes, you figured it out!
Have you also figured out why that's a good thing?
Chevron is dead? Cool. Now do Wickard v. Filburn.
"Have you also figured out why that's a good thing?"
Statists don't see this as a good thing, they're opposed to limits on government boots stamping on human faces. When they're the ones wearing them, of course.
Any institution that lasts long enough and can provide its members with money, fame, prestige, power, security, etc. will be corrupted by parasites. The parasites care very deeply about the benefits that their positions give to them, and have zero interest in what the institution is supposed to do beyond anything that personally benefits them and/or anything that could threaten their positions given they don't really care about their actual jobs. The United States generally has been corrupted with parasites now dominating almost every position that could be described as "elite." This includes the expert class, which are there mainly to either cash a paycheck and will "expert up" whatever their paymasters demand, or to push whatever agenda, often political, that matters to them. They are worse than useless.
But, golly, what we will do without experts?
I suspect the Trump will lose the immunity question. Good idea ,but not in the Constitution.
The Chevron decision is getting almost as much attention on X as the debate debacle. Democrats are outraged!
Chuck said...
The decision that worried me most immediately was Fischer. In particular, whether it would sidetrack the DC prosecution of Trump, and whether it would upset a great many J6 convictions and ongoing prosecutions. I was relieved to read this helpful essay at Just Security's home page; The Limited Effects of Fischer: DOJ Data Reveals Supreme Court’s Narrowing of Jan. 6th Obstruction Charges Will Have Minimal Impact.
Fischer is not going to get Trump off.
But apparently the "Just Security's" website gets you off
RAH said...
I suspect the Trump will lose the immunity question. Good idea ,but not in the Constitution.
If Trump was going to lose on Immunity, they would have released it by now
If there is no immunity a president can be immobilized
The 6-3 in Fischer is not the usual 6-3. Barrett joins the dissenters and Jackson is in the majority.
Good!
My spirit soars when it's jurisprudence and not politics.
I'd say "RIP Chevron" except I would piss on the grave.
"Congress knows that it does not--in fact cannot--write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve, and gaps that some other actor will have to fill. And it would usually prefer that actor to be the responsible agency, not a court."
Who gives a shit what Congress wants? Their power is limited! The idea they can "delegate" additional powers to other actors is insane.
Respect the Constitution or get the fuck out!
The Chevron decision is getting almost as much attention on X as the debate debacle. Democrats are outraged!
Fascists love the Administrative State.
Shocker!
Kudos to Jackson.
I would be so happy to have liberals worry about civil liberties again. It would be very, very, very nice.
"Who gives a shit what Congress wants? Their power is limited!"
Pity a Supreme Court justice does not understand this.
Strange New Respect coming Barrett's way in 3...2...1
boatbuilder: "Strange New Respect coming Barrett's way in 3...2...1"
She's got to be eyeing that Souter portrait and thinking, that could be me!
RAH said...
I suspect the Trump will lose the immunity question. Good idea ,but not in the Constitution.
I disagree. Who is going to be tasked with charging the President? Everybody in the executive branch derives their power from their appointment by the President of themselves or their superiors, so he can tell them to bugger off if they try to charge him.* The Judiciary can't do it because it only can decide cases brought to it. And the Legislative branch can only ask the executive branch to take action.
That means that the only way to constrain the President is through impeachment. But impeachment only allows the Legislative branch to remove the President when 2/3+ of the Senate convicts, it doesn't allow any other punishment. Then there is the Article I, section 3 clause, "but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." But this just means that the next administration can use the law against the impeached party, but only if the party is convicted in the impeachment. It seems pretty clear, both logically and in the written word.
* President Grant, famously did not tell the DC policeman who stopped him for speeding (he was racing his horses) to bugger off, but it was within his power to do so.
Public land is available under equal, not politically congruent, terms, cannot be partitioned through IED and other social justice schemes.
Liberals pushed people of black and others to the back of the bus to include illegal aliens. Perhaps the homeless can recover their American Civil Liberties by pushing progressive Unions out of the public space.
Jackson may be a social justice warrior but perhaps Roberts has been able to tutor her
If anybody is tutoring her, I hope it's Thomas!
Remember, Thomas had a poster of Malcolm X on his wall when he was an undergraduate. He went to protest marches and one of them turned into a riot. He later had an intellectual shift after reading Thomas Sowell.
It's interesting to read Thomas' wikipedia page. He had suspicions that much of his rapid advance was due to his skin color. And that annoyed him, and he often resisted the job. (But he would take the job anyway).
Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby is a great book to read about that sort of thing.
Unlike Marshall and Thomas, the appointment of Jackson was openly done because of her race (and her sex). It was a very weird and very blunt promise by Joe Biden to violate the law. You can't discriminate on the basis of race or sex in hiring people. And yet he promised he would do so. And the only people considered for the job were black women.
So how does that affect Jackson? It might (I repeat, might) create a craving for respect and/or independence, and she might be looking for opportunities to show that she's her own person.
For instance, it's rather suspicious to people when participants in what was essentially a white riot are treated far more harshly than some of the BLM riots. So judges who really want to be fair -- and follow the equal protection clause -- would object to that sort of thing. And that's what Jackson might be doing when she gives us a fair interpretation of the criminal statute. (I almost said "narrow" but I think "fair" is more on point).
Also, the Barrett dissent is notable because it's an all-female dissent, except for Jackson. If she joined it, the vote would be five men versus four women.
I can imagine any number of feminist articles about how men love riots and women are peace-keepers. (You could flip that around and say something like "brave men are honest jurists" or "women are scared of riots and it makes them dishonest").
Clearly Barrett isn't a coward. She voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in the face of very serious death threats.
Nonetheless, I suggest the possibility that Jackson -- who was specifically put on the court because she's a black woman -- might have made an effort to avoid feminist politics. And maybe she wanted to avoid an all-female dissent in a highly politicized case.
Also, it's dangerous to treat a Washington D.C. riot as far worse than a Seattle riot or a Detroit riot or a Chicago riot or a Philadelphia riot or any of those other riots from around the country. Congress might think, "we're way more important than all those rubes way out in the sticks," but if that's what they think, they damn well ought to say so in their criminal statutes.
Anyway, Jackson's concurrence is way more convincing (I almost said "honest") than Barrett's dissent.
Barrett gives the game away when she writes "admittedly, events like January 6th were not its target."
So is it a good idea to take a criminal law doing one thing and hijack it to punish people doing something else?
"Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?"
Yeah, cause Congress has never heard of a riot before.
The Barrett dissent is embarrassing.
John,
"That means that the only way to constrain the President is through impeachment. But impeachment only allows the Legislative branch to remove the President when 2/3+ of the Senate convicts, it doesn't allow any other punishment. Then there is the Article I, section 3 clause, "but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Correct. While a president is in office , Impeachment is the only way and that is the way it should be. Most President do illegal actions while in office . The concept of immunity is used by academics. police and so many professions. So the concept of immunity can be applied to the President.
The idea of pressing charges on each President once he is out off office was what lead to Caesar crossing the Rubicon.
It is a bad idea It divides the country even more.
Saint Croix said...
Who gives a shit what Congress wants? Their power is limited! The idea they can "delegate" additional powers to other actors is insane.
Respect the Constitution or get the fuck out!
This. 100x this
I see that Adrian Vermeule has told the defenders of the executive powers of the administrative state not to worry too much:
It is entirely possible that much or most of what was (somewhat misleadingly) called “Chevron deference” can be and will be recreated under a different label: “Loper Bright delegation.”
Post a Comment