The dissent written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor actually made the case for the majority opinion.
She wrote... “Litigants seeking further dismantling of the ‘administrative state’ have reason to rejoice in their win today, but those of us who cherish the rule of law have nothing to celebrate.”
Of course we want to dismantle the administrative state. We’re American citizens, not British subjects.
Dismantling the administrative state is one of my major political goals. Independence Day is next week.
Even better, https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2024/06/28/scotus-down-goes-chevron-n3791103?bcid=570bb8cfc0a79c6d0f617de6e55b3a8a813405e6404e2942e1a385b24daac48c
ReplyDeleteChevron deference was just overruled.
Justice Jackson has been impressing me with being much smarter than she seemed in her confirmation hearing. Justice Sotomayor, in contrast, generally sounds as though she had no idea how to practice law. What is this "rule of law" hyperventilating? Does she really have no idea that the controversy is over Constitutional checks and balances concerning how laws are enacted? Practically everyone wants the rule of law. Some of us understand that there have to be rules about how laws come into effect in the first place, as well. I get that people will disagree with me about how laws should be enacted, but I'm confused by a Supreme Court justice who seems oblivious to the existence of disputes on the subject. "If laws aren't enacted in exactly the way I've become used to, there's no rule of law at all!" It's purely dumb.
ReplyDeleteThe death of Chevron is fantastic news.
ReplyDeleteJustice Jackson could hardly have failed to be smarter than she seemed in confirmation, given that she pretended not to know what a woman was.
In more evidence that Justice Jackson possesses cognitive skills despite how vehemently I disagree with her policy preferences, she joined the majority in throwing out Sarbanes-Oxley "official proceeding tampering" charges against the J6 defendants--while Justice Barrett dissented. Justice Jackson appears to be analyzing legal issues on their own merits, not in a purely results-oriented partisan manner; what's more, her words are coherent, not psycho-babble. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/06/28/j6-scotus-n2640966 This is another tremendous win in the S. Ct. today.
ReplyDeleteI try to use the phrase "administrative state" instead of Deep State, just for precision, but it is a quixotic exercise.
ReplyDelete"Unelected bureaucrat powermongering state"
ReplyDeleteI use the term because Weber used it in his extended criticism of the model of the modern state. There's a set of commentaries on his lecture on my sidebar. Long before there was a "Deep State," he was already pointing up the structural problems of the modern administrative state both for the destruction of popular self-rule, as a necessary source of corruption, and as a power that would necessarily prove oppressive because its interests would require it to use its power ways that conflicted with citizen interests.
ReplyDelete"Justice Jackson appears to be analyzing legal issues on their own merits, not in a purely results-oriented partisan manner"
ReplyDeleteIN the case of the Sarbanes-Oxley, I suspect she's in keeping with her ideology of generally wanting to minimize sentences for crimes, especially politically motivated ones. She's thoughtful enough to think ahead to when the tables turn.
I agree, and that's surprisingly rare. It's exactly what you want in a judge, though, especially an appellate judge: the ability to craft doctrines that hold up in a wide variety of circumstances. A hack judge (or politician, or voter) can't get beyond the result he wants in a particular case.
ReplyDelete