2 ms·

Not a lawyer, They decide what to take or not themselves, I think for this at least 4 judges need to want to hear the case. Most cases come from underlying cou

Not a lawyer, They decide what to take or not themselves, I think for this at least 4 judges need to want to hear the case. Most cases come from underlying courts. I think for actual decisions it’s always full bench, but can be one judge for emergency decisions. I think a lot of WH EOs will end up with Supreme Court. And it feels like some of them are made especially for this, maybe even to overturn SC precedents (like firing FTC board members).

ggm 2y ago
Thanks. I hadn't appreciated the pick-and-choose quality. or the quorate 4 thing. It feels quite unexpected in some ways to wind up here. the Run up, the proceeding 10-20 years was full of the current people pushing hard for a non-creative, non-inventive supreme court. Black Letter Law arguments were being run, and sold as the basis of how a future court would work. Maybe I overstate that but that is how I see it. So now we arrive at a place where the WH and the SC are (it seems) bent on trying to re-define the legislative and WH powers landscape. and to do it they have to overturn anything up to 150 years of reasonably settled, black letter law, which says "this is how it works" -which means they have to be remarkably creative, inventive, and basically not do, what they said all along was the nature of their view of the nasty Democrats view of the SC and decision making. Overturning why the FTC board is independent, isn't a small thing. It sure writes small, but I don't personally think in long term impact, this is just a minor footnote kind of deal (I don't think you implied that either btw) This is "yea we said independent, but actually no: you aren't" kind of stuff. All those checks and balances which go to why you appoint independent boards, let stuff get run arms-length, they're all gone. If you get 4 years, you get to do pretty much whatever the hell you want, in those 4 years, is where this is going. Wild.

ggm 2y ago

Thanks. I hadn't appreciated the pick-and-choose quality. or the quorate 4 thing. It feels quite unexpected in some ways to wind up here. the Run up, the proceeding 10-20 years was full of the current people pushing hard for a non-creative, non-inventive supreme court. Black Letter Law arguments were being run, and sold as the basis of how a future court would work. Maybe I overstate that but that is how I see it. So now we arrive at a place where the WH and the SC are (it seems) bent on trying to re-define the legislative and WH powers landscape. and to do it they have to overturn anything up to 150 years of reasonably settled, black letter law, which says "this is how it works" -which means they have to be remarkably creative, inventive, and basically not do, what they said all along was the nature of their view of the nasty Democrats view of the SC and decision making. Overturning why the FTC board is independent, isn't a small thing. It sure writes small, but I don't personally think in long term impact, this is just a minor footnote kind of deal (I don't think you implied that either btw) This is "yea we said independent, but actually no: you aren't" kind of stuff. All those checks and balances which go to why you appoint independent boards, let stuff get run arms-length, they're all gone. If you get 4 years, you get to do pretty much whatever the hell you want, in those 4 years, is where this is going. Wild.