During a major hearing this week, the conservative justices made clear theyāre about to gut the federal governmentās power to regulateāand take that power for themselves.
The Supreme Court heard two consolidated cases yesterday that could reshape the legal landscape and, with them, the country. The cases take on Chevron deferenceāthe idea that courts should defer to executive agencies when applying regulations passed by Congress. Theyāre the most important cases about democracy on the courtās docket this year, and I say that knowing full well that the court is also set to decide whether a raving, orange criminal can run again for president, and whether former presidents are immune from prosecution for their crimes in the first place.
Thatās because what conservatives on the court are quietly trying to do is pull off the biggest judicial power grab since 1803, when it elevated itself to be the final arbiter of the Constitution in Marbury v. Madison. Theyāre trying to place their unelected, unaccountable policy preferences ahead of the laws made by the elected members of Congress or rules instituted by the president. If conservatives get their way, elections wonāt really matter, because courts will be able to limit the scope of congressional regulation and the ability of presidents to enforce those regulations effectively. And the dumbest justice of all, alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh, basically said so during oral arguments.
Iām contractually obligated to tell you that the cases were technically about fees that fisheries are required to pay to federal observers. But all the justices talked about was Chevron deference. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor even bothered to mention the fish, three hours and 20 minutes into a three-and-a-half-hour hearing.
Well, at least when listening to NPR, they seem to always say that āoriginalismā is basically just an excuse.
Weekend edition this AM was literally saying that the conservatives were looking for a way to cripple the regulatory state and theyāve been trying to cherry pick cases and legal arguments to make that happen. The court isnāt trying to solve a fishing case, it picked a fishing case to achieve a political objective.
Well, good for them. Far too often I seem to hear the āliberal mediaā giving such a term serious consideration, when it should be openly mocked and ridiculed for the sham it is.