3 ms·

The US Supreme Court hews close to precedent. The only two significant overturned decisions in the last decade are Roe v Wade, which regardless of your views on

The US Supreme Court hews close to precedent. The only two significant overturned decisions in the last decade are Roe v Wade, which regardless of your views on abortion was a poorly reasoned decision, which was really judicial legislation, that had to be essentially amended several times (whether abortion should be permitted is a separate question from whether Roe was good law, which it obviously wasn't) and Chevron, which was contrary to the most fundamental principles of the rule of law (that is, that the interpretation of the law is a fundamentally judicial function). Neither were really political decisions. The SCOTUS doesn't split along ideological or party lines all the time. It often splits in different ways, and often makes decisions on very politically heated topics unanimously. You should have more confidence in it. It is the least bad of your three major institutions of government by far. To go back to Chevron, you have to look beyond the US and understand that for anyone else anywhere else in the world, the idea of the courts deferring in their interpretation of the law to executive agencies is just ridiculous. It never made any sense. Its result was inevitable: a new government was elected and suddenly the law changed overnight because government departments all published their new "interpretations" of the law. That is just silly, it makes a mockery of the principles of the rule of law, and it gives too much power to the government. Law should be made by parliament (which you call congress, for some reason) and rulemaking powers should be explicitly delegated to executive agencies where appropriate. Vagueness in the law should be interpreted and resolved by the courts, not by the executive in a way that is subject to political whimsy.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> The only two significant overturned decisions in the last decade are Roe [...] and Chevron That's really not true; just a couple of the other major decisions overturned in the last decade: Apodaca v. Oregon, holding that while the 14th Amendment did incorporate the right to jury trial against the States, it did not incorporate the unanimity requirement that the Supreme Court has found against the federal government in the 6th Amendment against the states. (reversed in Ramos v. Louisiana, 2020.) Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, holding that a certiied public-sector union could collect an “agency fee” attributable to representational activities but not other union functions to represented non-member employees. Reversed by Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 31 (2018).
- milesrout 2y ago
  Maybe instead of significant I should have said significantly publicly controversial, or something along those lines.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Snyder v. United States, where it was decided that 'gratuities' after the fact are not bribes. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-bribery-law/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scop...
thecopy 2y ago
>To go back to Chevron, you have to look beyond the US and understand that for anyone else anywhere else in the world, the idea of the courts deferring in their interpretation of the law to executive agencies is just ridiculous My interpretation is difficult and complex domain specific regulation were handled by agency experts, and not lawyers. It is now up to congress to detail very specifically this potentially difficult regulation and to quickly adjust when research changes. Is my interpretation incorrect? Since to me this current approach sounds terrible, inflexibly and set-up to fail.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- yummypaint 2y ago
  Yes, it's about attacking the means by which we collectively hold bad actors in check. Also other countries absolutely do delegate regulatory minutae to experts. If we can delegate law making to elected representatives, we can do the same for regulations to ensure they do what is intended.
  - milesrout 2y ago
    No, it is about decent lawmaking. Nothing stops Congress from delegating regulation-making powers to agencies. Chevron isn't about that. Chevron didn't involve any delegation of anything. Chevron is about the statute saying something vague like "a term in a consumer credit contract is void if it is oppressive" and then the effective definition of the word "oppressive" being able to be "interpreted" by executive agencies at their whim with the courts being powerless to intervene. That is contrary to the rule of law. If there is a vagueness, that should be filled by a court supplying an interpretation and that precedent is then established. Law should be stable and predictable. Remember the original Chevron case was based on the EPA changing its interpretation of "source" of air pollution under the Clean Air Act 1963 to make it much narrower. There was no statutory power for it to do so. Nothing in the Act authorised it. It unilaterally changed its interpretation of the law, and the Court said "that is fine, it is ambiguous, you decide what the law is and as long as it is a reasonable interpretation that is fine". Nothing to stop them turning around the next day and changing their interpretation again.
psunavy03 2y ago
The fact that this is getting downvoted into the ground really shows the delta between reality and what the members of this site want to convince themselves is reality. The majority of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous.
- threeseed 2y ago
  Historically it has not been unanimous: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-unanimity-is-fleeting-with-tougher-cases-looming-37 https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-unan... And as the article says the courts have been increasingly looking at narrowly scoped cases that are less precedent changing.
mullingitover 2y ago
> The SCOTUS doesn't split along ideological or party lines all the time. It happens enough on cases that matter that it's farcical not to put (R) and (D) after the names of the justices, for clarity, when discussing them in the press.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> The only two significant overturned decisions in the last decade are Roe [...] and Chevron That's really not true; just a couple of the other major decisions overturned in the last decade: Apodaca v. Oregon, holding that while the 14th Amendment did incorporate the right to jury trial against the States, it did not incorporate the unanimity requirement that the Supreme Court has found against the federal government in the 6th Amendment against the states. (reversed in Ramos v. Louisiana, 2020.) Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, holding that a certiied public-sector union could collect an “agency fee” attributable to representational activities but not other union functions to represented non-member employees. Reversed by Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 31 (2018).

milesrout 2y ago
Maybe instead of significant I should have said significantly publicly controversial, or something along those lines.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Snyder v. United States, where it was decided that 'gratuities' after the fact are not bribes. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-bribery-law/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scop...

thecopy 2y ago

>To go back to Chevron, you have to look beyond the US and understand that for anyone else anywhere else in the world, the idea of the courts deferring in their interpretation of the law to executive agencies is just ridiculous My interpretation is difficult and complex domain specific regulation were handled by agency experts, and not lawyers. It is now up to congress to detail very specifically this potentially difficult regulation and to quickly adjust when research changes. Is my interpretation incorrect? Since to me this current approach sounds terrible, inflexibly and set-up to fail.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
yummypaint 2y ago
Yes, it's about attacking the means by which we collectively hold bad actors in check. Also other countries absolutely do delegate regulatory minutae to experts. If we can delegate law making to elected representatives, we can do the same for regulations to ensure they do what is intended.
- milesrout 2y ago
  No, it is about decent lawmaking. Nothing stops Congress from delegating regulation-making powers to agencies. Chevron isn't about that. Chevron didn't involve any delegation of anything. Chevron is about the statute saying something vague like "a term in a consumer credit contract is void if it is oppressive" and then the effective definition of the word "oppressive" being able to be "interpreted" by executive agencies at their whim with the courts being powerless to intervene. That is contrary to the rule of law. If there is a vagueness, that should be filled by a court supplying an interpretation and that precedent is then established. Law should be stable and predictable. Remember the original Chevron case was based on the EPA changing its interpretation of "source" of air pollution under the Clean Air Act 1963 to make it much narrower. There was no statutory power for it to do so. Nothing in the Act authorised it. It unilaterally changed its interpretation of the law, and the Court said "that is fine, it is ambiguous, you decide what the law is and as long as it is a reasonable interpretation that is fine". Nothing to stop them turning around the next day and changing their interpretation again.

psunavy03 2y ago

The fact that this is getting downvoted into the ground really shows the delta between reality and what the members of this site want to convince themselves is reality. The majority of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous.

threeseed 2y ago
Historically it has not been unanimous: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-unanimity-is-fleeting-with-tougher-cases-looming-37 https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-unan... And as the article says the courts have been increasingly looking at narrowly scoped cases that are less precedent changing.

mullingitover 2y ago

> The SCOTUS doesn't split along ideological or party lines all the time. It happens enough on cases that matter that it's farcical not to put (R) and (D) after the names of the justices, for clarity, when discussing them in the press.