3 ms·

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 th

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.

falcolas 2y ago
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.
- vundercind 2y ago
  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.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]