3 ms·

If you’re opposed to the fundamental function of the USSC to the point that you’re unhappy with Marbury v Madison, then there’s not a whole lot of common groun

by hnfong 2y ago

If you’re opposed to the fundamental function of the USSC to the point that you’re unhappy with Marbury v Madison, then there’s not a whole lot of common ground to discuss the Chevron case and it’s overturn. Don’t get me wrong, I honestly have no stake in the discussion since i’m not an American, and I’m well aware of the controversies in Marbury v Madison, I’m just trying to point out that while your objection to USSC’s fundamental role is well taken, the Loper case is more of an administrative law issue regarding the proper application of Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which reads: To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. [……] The ideal constitutional function of the USSC seems tangential to Chevron and Loper, AFAICT

Defletter 2y ago
You have very much drunk the koolaid if you believe that Judicial Review for Constitutionality is a "fundamental function" of the Supreme Court. Perhaps it's radical of me, but I generally prefer that government institutions act within the law; and there's nothing in the law that gives them that power. What I was saying, and have attempted to clarify multiple times now, is that Marbury v. Madison [and the other cases that have expanded the Supreme Court's power] has set a culture. You said it yourself: "then reversing the restraint just means that at worst the SC is (ab)using its constitutional powers 'without restraint' to interpret laws". Them discarding judicial restraint is a consequence of such a culture. I feel like I've emphasised this point enough and it doesn't need further clarification. Cya, I guess.

by hnfong 2y ago

Defletter 2y ago

You have very much drunk the koolaid if you believe that Judicial Review for Constitutionality is a "fundamental function" of the Supreme Court. Perhaps it's radical of me, but I generally prefer that government institutions act within the law; and there's nothing in the law that gives them that power. What I was saying, and have attempted to clarify multiple times now, is that Marbury v. Madison [and the other cases that have expanded the Supreme Court's power] has set a culture. You said it yourself: "then reversing the restraint just means that at worst the SC is (ab)using its constitutional powers 'without restraint' to interpret laws". Them discarding judicial restraint is a consequence of such a culture. I feel like I've emphasised this point enough and it doesn't need further clarification. Cya, I guess.