Has Biden acknowledged that the Supreme Court *can* be political? Expanding the Court is going to take popular anger, but until the Court gets pointed at, then Biden is the blame magnet. I’d love it if every 6-3 SC ruling on BS grounds was followed by Biden pointing to them, saying “This is why we can’t have nice things.”
Like, “The letter of the law says a President can modify student loans in case of emergency — and if you didn’t think COVID was an emergency, you weren’t reading the business pages. But today I discovered that I can’t promise anything at all to the American people. The conservative members of the Supreme Court have broken precedent, invented law, reversed themselves, and discovered unknown or long-discredited principles when Congress or the President or both bring relief to the American people — apparently when their rich friends don’t like the laws and executive actions we make and take. I am going to pursue student debt relief through less effective means, but you should remember that some members of this Supreme Court are acting more like legislators than justices — and I say they should resign the Court and run for office if they believe their ideas are popular and want to legislate.”
I think lots of people are unhappy with some big SCOTUS rulings, but I don't think many people appreciate how radical and corrupt (meaning both venal and lacking integrity) the Court is. I'm pretty sure Dems talking about it a LOT more is at least part of the way to change that.
The Biden team are good substantively on many issues that matter to people, but absolutely terrible on communications. They need a war room approach like Clinton had, not allowing any comments to go unaddressed. Have these people ever run a campaign before?
One of the reasons Iowa voters gave for their support of Trump is that he will fight like hell for them. Not sure many democrats feel that way about Biden.
My novel theory is that Biden's low approval is due to the extended sidelining of America's key vibe makers. I'm talking, of course, about late night comedians and the extended SAG strike, and I'm only somewhat joking. Anyone looking for a poli sci PhD thesis?
Great piece, and these cases & the upcoming awful SCOTUS ruling doing away with Chevron deference to Executive branch experts/regulators really will be a massive blow to democracy and boost for the plutocratic overlords and their bought & corrupted judiciary.
As Elie Mystal ended his excellent piece on the cases (here) -- "The Supreme Court didn’t hold an oral argument yesterday. It held a coronation. For themselves. They are about to crown themselves with power nobody elected them to have." It really is an enormous power grab away from democratically elected branches to the Trump-infested judiciary.
One minor correction to your piece though -- this bit is actually backward: "Gorsuch has been gunning for the administrative state, and Chevron in particular, his whole career. He is apparently motivated by animus over his mother’s tumultuous, partisan tenure as EPA director in the 1980s, when Chevron deference became doctrine in a decision that overrode one of her own acts of discretion."
The original Chevron decision actually upheld Anne Gorsuch's action to loosen environmental regulations while she was heading (and hamstringing) the EPA.
Brian, I wanted to follow up about my comment above the noted correction to your post, as I think it illustrates & further supports a common theme of yours, namely GOP shamelessness.
That is, the original *Chevron* decision in that particular case *favored* de-regulation and blessed regulatory loosening championed by Anne Gorsuch as head of Reagan's EPA. Neil Gorsuch is not in any way motivated by some desire to win a battle his mother lost; his mother won.
The original *Chevron* decision stood for the proposition that random judges should not be overruling the agency decisions if those charged with heading agency (like Anne Gorsuch) were at least acting on a semi reasonable interpretation of the statute. Reagan won, and his EPA/Anne Gorsuch was entitled to loosen regulations so long as her actions were not completely unjustified by statutory terms (tho hers very close).
Back then, conservatives like Scalia & Thomas loved *Chevron* because it was a way of telling "activist" lower court "liberal" judges to stop interfering with GOP agency heads acting to roll back regulations.
But now that the GOP & Federalist Society have largely staffed the judiciary with corrupt Trumpist hacks who lack any integrity and freely issue rulings devoid of any logic or respect for precedent as long as the result benefits the GOP, the prospect of random judges KOing agency action looks more appealing.
One might be tempted to accuse them of hypocrisy, but that would mistake them as having any principles. They do not, and they only now embrace scrapping *Chevron* because they control the courts and see random Trumpist judges as a great check on Biden or future Dem presidents. The moment the federal courts tilt more "liberal" or are no longer dominated by Trumpist/Federalist Society goons, and the moment "liberal" judges start to hamstring a future GOP president, they will promptly invent a new doctrine of deference to agency actions (good only during GOP presidencies).
The President and Congress have a powerful weapon they can use to keep this court in check. Introduce a bill repealing the Judiciary Act of 1925. This bill allowed the Supreme Court's jurisdiction discretionary subject to grant of writ of certiorari. This meant they can pick the cases they would decide. The real would need to leave in place the Court of Appeals. I don’t think the current court would like to have to hear almost every case an unhappy litigant brought. But since they want to eliminate the Administrative agencies authority by overturning the Chevron decision thus moving actions previously adjuctated at an administrative level to the federal courts, this would be karma.
You have misconstrued mid-term election support for abortion rights with electoral support for Roe. You can support reproductive rights but also see Roe as Court over-reach. And Biden's team is aware.
I agree with everything in this piece, except for the notion that Trump is "responsible for Dobbs." The man most responsible for Dobbs, and for making the current judiciary "illegitimate, partisan, corrupt, and drunk with power," is Mitch McConnell. It was McConnell, with a big assist from Leonard Leo, who scouted, selected, vetted, and ensured the dubious confirmations of all of Trump's SCOTUS and appellate nominees. Trump himself could not have cared less.
Biden is out of touch with current reality. He came of age politically in the seventies and eighties and still believes a good Repukelican Party is possible. It is not, and he should act accordingly. A good start would be to tell SCROTUS that he is about ready to ignore nakedly partisan political rulings and reinstate administrative guidance the court strikes down. Furthermore, he should stop humoring these hacks by actually having the DOJ appear to argue political cases, that is cases involving administrative power. This court is besotted with power and won’t stop until it is told to fuck off.
This Supreme Court is a travesty of democracy and a failure of our system of government, much like the filibuster it thwarts the will of the people. Anything that can be done to strip it of its power must be done -- "with vigor."
"Biden’s abysmal polling is multifaceted, and to some extent mysterious." I appreciate the attempt at humility, but it is telling that the folks who do this for a living can't figure it out. I hate Trump and voted for Biden but, as an independent from swing-state Michigan, his presidency has largely reminded folks of why they voted for Trump in the first place.
I don't see the problem with letting politically motivated right wing judges at all levels or ultra-rich "libertarian" entrepreneurs (Musk, Thiel, Ackman) and their funded elected officials decide the merits of complex technical issues. What have the so-called "experts" done for most everyday people in the last 150 years or so? Really?
An excellent theory, I think. As strongly as Biden has spoken about the imperative to save Democracy, he should address these matters, too.
Exactly! Not just that, they’re related matters!
Has Biden acknowledged that the Supreme Court *can* be political? Expanding the Court is going to take popular anger, but until the Court gets pointed at, then Biden is the blame magnet. I’d love it if every 6-3 SC ruling on BS grounds was followed by Biden pointing to them, saying “This is why we can’t have nice things.”
Like, “The letter of the law says a President can modify student loans in case of emergency — and if you didn’t think COVID was an emergency, you weren’t reading the business pages. But today I discovered that I can’t promise anything at all to the American people. The conservative members of the Supreme Court have broken precedent, invented law, reversed themselves, and discovered unknown or long-discredited principles when Congress or the President or both bring relief to the American people — apparently when their rich friends don’t like the laws and executive actions we make and take. I am going to pursue student debt relief through less effective means, but you should remember that some members of this Supreme Court are acting more like legislators than justices — and I say they should resign the Court and run for office if they believe their ideas are popular and want to legislate.”
I think lots of people are unhappy with some big SCOTUS rulings, but I don't think many people appreciate how radical and corrupt (meaning both venal and lacking integrity) the Court is. I'm pretty sure Dems talking about it a LOT more is at least part of the way to change that.
The moral high road and the road to hell are the same road.
The Biden team are good substantively on many issues that matter to people, but absolutely terrible on communications. They need a war room approach like Clinton had, not allowing any comments to go unaddressed. Have these people ever run a campaign before?
Feckless old Democrats are not equipped to tackle the fascist party. Read Rick Perlstein and trust your eyes and ears.
One of the reasons Iowa voters gave for their support of Trump is that he will fight like hell for them. Not sure many democrats feel that way about Biden.
My novel theory is that Biden's low approval is due to the extended sidelining of America's key vibe makers. I'm talking, of course, about late night comedians and the extended SAG strike, and I'm only somewhat joking. Anyone looking for a poli sci PhD thesis?
Great piece, and these cases & the upcoming awful SCOTUS ruling doing away with Chevron deference to Executive branch experts/regulators really will be a massive blow to democracy and boost for the plutocratic overlords and their bought & corrupted judiciary.
As Elie Mystal ended his excellent piece on the cases (here) -- "The Supreme Court didn’t hold an oral argument yesterday. It held a coronation. For themselves. They are about to crown themselves with power nobody elected them to have." It really is an enormous power grab away from democratically elected branches to the Trump-infested judiciary.
One minor correction to your piece though -- this bit is actually backward: "Gorsuch has been gunning for the administrative state, and Chevron in particular, his whole career. He is apparently motivated by animus over his mother’s tumultuous, partisan tenure as EPA director in the 1980s, when Chevron deference became doctrine in a decision that overrode one of her own acts of discretion."
The original Chevron decision actually upheld Anne Gorsuch's action to loosen environmental regulations while she was heading (and hamstringing) the EPA.
Meant to include a link to Elie's article: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/we-are-witnessing-the-biggest-judicial-power-grab-since-1803/
Brian, I wanted to follow up about my comment above the noted correction to your post, as I think it illustrates & further supports a common theme of yours, namely GOP shamelessness.
That is, the original *Chevron* decision in that particular case *favored* de-regulation and blessed regulatory loosening championed by Anne Gorsuch as head of Reagan's EPA. Neil Gorsuch is not in any way motivated by some desire to win a battle his mother lost; his mother won.
The original *Chevron* decision stood for the proposition that random judges should not be overruling the agency decisions if those charged with heading agency (like Anne Gorsuch) were at least acting on a semi reasonable interpretation of the statute. Reagan won, and his EPA/Anne Gorsuch was entitled to loosen regulations so long as her actions were not completely unjustified by statutory terms (tho hers very close).
Back then, conservatives like Scalia & Thomas loved *Chevron* because it was a way of telling "activist" lower court "liberal" judges to stop interfering with GOP agency heads acting to roll back regulations.
But now that the GOP & Federalist Society have largely staffed the judiciary with corrupt Trumpist hacks who lack any integrity and freely issue rulings devoid of any logic or respect for precedent as long as the result benefits the GOP, the prospect of random judges KOing agency action looks more appealing.
One might be tempted to accuse them of hypocrisy, but that would mistake them as having any principles. They do not, and they only now embrace scrapping *Chevron* because they control the courts and see random Trumpist judges as a great check on Biden or future Dem presidents. The moment the federal courts tilt more "liberal" or are no longer dominated by Trumpist/Federalist Society goons, and the moment "liberal" judges start to hamstring a future GOP president, they will promptly invent a new doctrine of deference to agency actions (good only during GOP presidencies).
The President and Congress have a powerful weapon they can use to keep this court in check. Introduce a bill repealing the Judiciary Act of 1925. This bill allowed the Supreme Court's jurisdiction discretionary subject to grant of writ of certiorari. This meant they can pick the cases they would decide. The real would need to leave in place the Court of Appeals. I don’t think the current court would like to have to hear almost every case an unhappy litigant brought. But since they want to eliminate the Administrative agencies authority by overturning the Chevron decision thus moving actions previously adjuctated at an administrative level to the federal courts, this would be karma.
You have misconstrued mid-term election support for abortion rights with electoral support for Roe. You can support reproductive rights but also see Roe as Court over-reach. And Biden's team is aware.
I agree with everything in this piece, except for the notion that Trump is "responsible for Dobbs." The man most responsible for Dobbs, and for making the current judiciary "illegitimate, partisan, corrupt, and drunk with power," is Mitch McConnell. It was McConnell, with a big assist from Leonard Leo, who scouted, selected, vetted, and ensured the dubious confirmations of all of Trump's SCOTUS and appellate nominees. Trump himself could not have cared less.
Biden is out of touch with current reality. He came of age politically in the seventies and eighties and still believes a good Repukelican Party is possible. It is not, and he should act accordingly. A good start would be to tell SCROTUS that he is about ready to ignore nakedly partisan political rulings and reinstate administrative guidance the court strikes down. Furthermore, he should stop humoring these hacks by actually having the DOJ appear to argue political cases, that is cases involving administrative power. This court is besotted with power and won’t stop until it is told to fuck off.
The Biden team are good substantively on many issues, it absolute
This Supreme Court is a travesty of democracy and a failure of our system of government, much like the filibuster it thwarts the will of the people. Anything that can be done to strip it of its power must be done -- "with vigor."
"Biden’s abysmal polling is multifaceted, and to some extent mysterious." I appreciate the attempt at humility, but it is telling that the folks who do this for a living can't figure it out. I hate Trump and voted for Biden but, as an independent from swing-state Michigan, his presidency has largely reminded folks of why they voted for Trump in the first place.
I don't see the problem with letting politically motivated right wing judges at all levels or ultra-rich "libertarian" entrepreneurs (Musk, Thiel, Ackman) and their funded elected officials decide the merits of complex technical issues. What have the so-called "experts" done for most everyday people in the last 150 years or so? Really?