SCOTUS thread

zoogs

zoogs

New member
So, reading more of SCOTUSblog recently has been fascinating. A pair of 6-2 decisions came down today. One of the cases, described jovially here as 'technical', appears to have amounted to a titanic grammarian battle:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/opinion-analysis-battle-of-statutory-interpretation-canons-ends-in-defeat-for-convicted-sex-offender/

The technical dispute was about the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2), which subjects defendants convicted of possessing child pornography to a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence if they have a prior conviction . . . under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.
Click to expand...
The federal government made a scintillating case for The Rule of Last Antecedent -- 'A, B, or [C with D]' ...
...while the plaintiffs equally vouched for The Rule of Series Qualifier -- '[A, B, or C] with D'.

That's vexing indeed, and produced this sharp disagreement between justices Sotomayor and Kagan, expressed, naturally, in dueling baseball metaphors:

Sotomayor: "Imagine you are the general manager of the Yankees and you are rounding out your 2016 roster.

You tell your scouts to find a defensive catcher, a quick-footed shortstop, or a pitcher from last years World Champion Kansas City Royals. It would be natural for your scouts to confine their search for a pitcher to last years championship team, but to look more broadly for catchers and shortstops."

Kagan: If your instruction as a scout was to find “a catcher, shortstop, or pitcher from the Kansas City Royals,” she wrote in her dissent (which was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer), surely you wouldn’t come back with a catcher or a shortstop from another team. Whomever you came back with, he would be from the Royals. The qualifier “Royals” obviously applies to everything in the list.
Click to expand...
That's underrepresenting the case, probably, but that was the amusing part of it. There's a good question raised about 'rule of lenity' here which I suppose I'll let more lawyerly types comment about, if we have any.
I'm glad I looked up the SCOTUSblog treatment for this. I read another article about these decisions that gave case background and then one of Kagan's analogies without context and I was very confused by it
default_laugh.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Called it.

Supreme Court holds that Chevron is overruled in Loper v. Raimondo


Supreme Court overturns 1984 Chevron precedent, curbing power of federal government


The Supreme Court on Friday significantly weakened the power of federal agencies to approve regulations in a major decision that could have sweeping implications for the environment, public health and the workplace.

The 6-3 ruling, overturning a precedent from 1984, will shift the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches and hands an important victory to conservatives who have sought for years to rein in the regulatory authority of the “administrative state.”

The lawsuits were filed by two groups of herring fishermen challenging a Commerce Department regulation requiring them to pay the salaries of government observers who board their vessels to monitor the catch. But the decision will net a far wider swath of federal regulations affecting many facets of American life.

The decision overturns the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council precedent that required courts to give deference to federal agencies when creating regulations based on an ambiguous law. Congress routinely enacts open-ended laws that give latitude to agencies to work out — and adjust — the details to new circumstances.

Here's a pretty good rundown of the upcoming path from a redditor:


Paxton now files a lawsuit against the FDA in Kacsmaryk's district seeking to revoke the approval of mifepristone, arguing the FDA does not EXPLICITLY have the power to approve any drug for abortion. Despite the FDCA saying a "drug" is "ANY substance (not food) designed to affect ANY structure or ANY function of the human body". Lots of ANY in there but you know this court does not care.

Paxton will argue that "pregnancy is a natural state of the human condition designed to propagate the species" (see AHM vs FDA district court ruling) and absent CLEAR congressional intent, the FDA has no power to approve a drug designed to interfere with that.

Abortion drugs, contraception, IUDs, erectile dysfunction meds, pre-exposure prophylaxis HIV meds, you name it are on the chopping block via APA challenges in forum shopped courts. SCOTUS knew exactly what is was doing here. This is a glidepath for Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell to be overruled because fighting back on those drug and device challenges will likely reach and beyond the FDCA and APA.

Buckle up ladies and gentleman.
Click to expand...

 
So let me get this straight:

Homelessness is a crime, political bribery is legal, they arent sure if women should be able to receive life saving care in ID so they are kicking the bucket down the road to rule after the election (wonder what they will rule if Trump wins), judges know more than experts and can overrule them on water, air, food, drugs, etc. and Trump will have FULL immunity and Biden will still have to abide by the laws. The last one hasnt happened yet, but will Monday most likely. If not full immunity, at least part immunity that will help him wiggle out of the charges. Healthy system we have here! Welcome back to 1900! Have fun with cholera and TB making a return. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221 said:
For those interested in a backgrounder on the case and ruling.  
 
Click to expand...
So youre good with Ted Cruz and Marjorie Taylor Greene determining how much lead should be in our drinking water and which drugs can be deemed safe and ready for distribution? Might want to research Harvey Wiley’s 1926 poison study to see if corporations will give a damn about poisoning their customers if they save a little cash doing it. Insane. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ratt Mhule said:
So youre good with Ted Cruz and Marjorie Taylor Greene determining how much lead should be in our drinking water and which drugs can be deemed safe and ready for distribution? Might want to research Harvey Wiley’s 1926 poison study to see if corporations will give a damn about poisoning their customers if they save a little cash doing it. Insane. 
Click to expand...
Do you understand what the SCOTUS ruling means?   

 
Archy1221 said:
Do you understand what the SCOTUS ruling means?   
Click to expand...
 
I understand enough. The chevron doctrine gave administrative agencies like the EPA, FDA, etc the power to interpret the laws as they saw fit using experts in their field. Scotus shut that down and gave the judicial system the ultimate power to interpret the laws. Judges are not experts in these fields and neither are politicians, so they will write laws and interpret laws based on s#!t they dont understand. So my question stands, do you feel comfortable giving Ted Cruz and MTG power to determine how much lead is in your drinking water?


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221 said:
Those “experts” had little to no checks on their interpretation of the laws and that’s crazy! 
Click to expand...
Im drinking clean water. Im breathing fresh air. Im eating food that wont poison me for the most part. Im taking drugs that are proven effective. Whats the issue? Id rather have doctors and scientists interpret the laws than Aileen Cannon. Sorry!

Just give it a few years and you will start to see the negative affects with this. People will die. Just like the Texas infant mortality rate increased by 8% this year. Who could have forseen that happening after Dobbs? Just about everyone with a working brain. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top