The majority disdains restraint and grasps for power

I’m about to travel, leaving Monday after lunch. I might post tomorrow, and might not. I’ll be gone for two and a half weeks. If I post in that time it will probably be travelogue. Yeah, pontificating on Thursday’s debate is still a thing. Kerry Eleveld of Daily Kos wrote a review of the debate. In spite of the obvious flubs that are getting all the airtime Biden did give a spirited defense of democracy in the face of the nasty guy lies. The nasty guy’s lying did catch plenty of notice. Alas, there are still many who won’t vote for the nasty guy because of his lies and other behavior, but then saw Biden as old and won’t vote for him. Joan McCarter of Kos reported that Speaker Mike Johnson has found a reason to remove a president. Johnson was an architect of the nasty guy’s attempt to stay in office in 2020 and voted against impeachment twice. His choice in November is the criminal and constant liar. Johnson could have helped remove that president from office. And didn’t. But he’s called on Biden to pull out of the race. Reason? Biden lost a debate.

This is the same Mike Johnson who voted against removing Trump from office after the Capitol insurrection. He’s for removing a president because he’s old, and he’s against removing a president who is old and who tried to overthrow the government. Good to know.

McCarter than quoted CNN’s fact checker, who said the nasty lied more than 30 times. The quote lists them. Kos of Kos says Biden called for the debates and set the rules, so Biden needs to fix it. That does not mean dropping out. There is a problem if the nomination is handed to Kamala Harris. She’s not Biden and would have an extremely hard time winning. But shoving Harris aside for Newsom, Whitmer, or Buttigieg or any other Democrat ready to jump in would create quite bad optics. Also, states want names for the ballot by about six weeks. This was a lost opportunity to shift the narrative from Biden’s age to the nasty guy’s mental decline. But so far the polls have shifted little. The Supremes have issued quite a few rulings over the last few days as they conclude their session. An Associated Press article posted on Kos reported on a ruling about whether cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors when shelters are full. The question before the court is whether the bans were “cruel and unusual” and in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The majority, in the 6-3 decision along ideological lines, said nope, it’s not cruel. The minority, in a dissent read from the bench, said yes, it is. “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. The minority sided with the homeless who, in many cases, do not have an option when shelters are full. The number of homeless in the country is more than 650K, the most since 2007. The majority sided with cities, who want to keep their beautiful and safe. The article doesn’t mention how the ruling supports the social hierarchy, which this Court is all about. This ruling is also about oppressing the people already in a difficult and precarious positions. Another AP article reported the Court overturned the Chevron decision. Many articles don’t mention the name of the two cases involved, which can be confusing, so I’ll mention them: Loper v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. The main dispute is who has the final say when an agency issues a rule and the supporting law is vague in that area. Back in 1984 the Chevron decision concluded that in such cases deference should be given to the agency who wrote the rule. They’re the experts. Congress cannot foresee every possibility and having Congress wrangle every last detail of what “clean water” means is something they don’t have time or expertise for. So, fine, Congress can’t fill in the details. But corporations say courts can. Environment and consumer protection advocates say, courts aren’t subject experts either. It will take time to teach the courts the relevant science. Filling the courts with these cases (and there will be a lot of cases) will take up a lot of time and in the meantime the corporations could continue their harm to consumers and the environment. (To which corporations say to themselves, yep, that’s the point.) Scott Detrow of NPR talked to law professor Jody Freeman about this case in a six minute, understandable discussion. McCarter reported Justice Elena Kagan issued a strong dissent for these rulings. There’s the part about courts not being subject experts – which Justice Gorsuch demonstrated by repeatedly confusing “nitrous oxide” and “nitrogen oxides.” A bit of Kagan’s dissent quoted by McCarter:

In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar. It defends that move as one (suddenly) required by the (nearly 80-year-old) Administrative Procedure Act. But the Act makes no such demand. Today’s decision is not one Congress directed. It is entirely the majority’s choice. ... Its justification comes down, in the end, to this: Courts must have more say over regulation—over the provision of health care, the protection of the environment, the safety of consumer products, the efficacy of transportation systems, and so on. A longstanding precedent at the crux of administrative governance thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority. The majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power.

A Supreme Court power grab? Yes, because a lot of cases will be appealed to them. In a pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin had several interesting quotes. Jill Lawrence suggested that the nasty guy won simply by showing up because the impeachment process and the courts did not protect the country. He won again when moderators called him “Mr. President.” The rest of Dworkin’s quotes are about the ruling’s the Supremes have issued over the last few days. Just Security talked about another case, this one the Fisher ruling. It narrowed the definition of obstructing an official act. This was used to prosecute many of the Capitol attackers and the official act was Biden’s election certification. For those already convicted there is minimal impact. For those still waiting trial there are other laws to convict them under. Rock Hasen of Election Law Blog says the Fisher ruling probably won’t help the nasty guy because of his fake elector scheme. Inside Climate News discussed the decision to overturn Chevron. Though the actual question involved a small fishing operation the case was funded by the network created by the billionaire Koch family, who made their billions in petroleum and very much want to gut consumer and environmental protections. That original Chevron case was led by Anne Gorsuch, then head of the EPA and fierce opponent of regulations. She lost that 1984 case. Her son Neil wrote a lengthy concurring opinion to overturn Chevron. Noah Rosenbloom of The Atlantic said attacking the federal government’s ability to regulate industry (to protect consumers and the environment) has long been a corporate top priority.