>[Gorsuch] noted that the two cases pending at the Supreme Court — both of which concern a commercial fishing rule that requires fishermen to pay for regulatory monitors on their boats — led to disparate findings of ambiguity in the lower courts despite a relatively basic question.

It seems pretty reasonable to enforce meaningful laws rather than fall back to "federal agencies can just decide what this law means." Especially when "ambiguity" itself becomes ambiguous.

I understand that this sort of thing can be taken as "inflammatory", but if you're one of these groups, your _existence is political and flamebaity_; You can't escape it. That's why people are bringing it up, because they're the ones that have to live with the consequences.

Interested in more of your perspective on this. Please expand on your opinion around all conservatives “creating a hellish world for everyone”.

Citizen's United is a big one, but there are also rulings labor laws, restricting federal agencies ability to regulate safety. It's so ridiculously skewed. You want to get a look at their logic, they enable states to outlaw abortion and in the same breath they prevent states from regulating guns. There is no principle beyond enabling the powerful to control and exploit as well as perpetuating the culture wars.

I'm not even Conservative (I happily live in a Communist country) but worked as a lawyer in a previous life. Your arguments do not hold water.

[1] Citizen's United has benefitted Democrats more than republicans: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-use...

[2] The second amendment is a constitutional right. A textualist right wing Supreme Court would outlaw any restriction or regulation on firearms whatsoever. That would be entirely consitutional.

[3] There is no contradiction to the logic you describe. There is constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right to an abortion. Even the supporters of the outcomes of Roe vs Wade admit it was a lousy opinion (e.g. Ruth Bader Ginsburg: https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsbur...).

If you want to create the right to an abortion, pass a law. If you want to repeal or modify the second amendment, persuade your fellow citizens to pass a constitutional amendment. An actual, activist right wing court could find most of the federal government unconstitutional, using the same logic Alito used in Roe vs Wade.

There are something like 3000 regulations on firearms in the US which the court has found to be consitutional which is debatable. Most of the Federal goverment, especially regulatory agencies are probably unconstitutional. Social security is probably unconstitutional, as it should be relegated to the states. RICO laws are unconstitutional.

If you create rights by judicial fiat, don't be surprised when they are removed by judicical fiat.

[1] It benefited the rich and powerful is what you mean. The fact that donations went more toward Democrats than Republicans doesn't change that. So rich people are trying to control the center left side of politics...this isn't news.

[2] The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a modern construct, it became in vogue during the 1980s and 1990s when the NRA and gun manufacturers aligned in right wing politics. The individual right to bear arms in all circumstances didn't exist until then.

[3] There is definitely a contradiction in preventing states from regulating gun control rights (preventing the killing of other people) and enabling states to regulate abortion for the purported purpose of preventing the killing of other people.

[1] I don't know how that's the republican's fault. Again, it's the constitution.

[2] This is entirely incorrect. Garry Wills, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, Simon and Schuster, 1999, p. 252. ("Until recently, the Second Amendment was a little-visited area of the Constitution. A two thousand-page commentary on the Constitution put out by the Library of Congress in 1973 has copious annotation for most clauses, but less than a page and a half for the Second Amendment.")

The Tommy guns and explosives used during the gangster wars of the prohibition were almost entirely legally obtained (some were imported from Ireland in exchange for liquor). As a lawyer, what you are saying is literally the opposite of the truth. Until the 1980s, gun rights were understood to be a state's rights issue, and most limitations on the federal level (like in the Dredd Scott decision) were based around the rights of black former slaves to own guns.

[3] There is only a contradiction if you assume that the supreme court only exists to prevent the death of people and the unborn, rather than to enforce the constitution. If there was a constitutional amendment that said that every citizen had to go and kill a Mexican every Wednesday afternoon, it would be the job of the supreme court to enforce that constitutional provision until it was repealed.

The Supreme Court doesn't exist to impose your political views, it exists to impose the constitution. The constitution often produces outcomes that are not in synergy with each other or a broader overall purpose. That is the problem of the legislature and the constitution, not the court.

Free market ideas tend to be very short sighted and rely on bodies being on the floor before anything is done.

Ignoring that question entirely; how is this relevant to the situation at hand. Based on the article it seems to me that the court is ready to strike down a provision that lets federal bureacrats essentially legislate without being elected. This is not a question of 'free markets' but of 'democracy'. Who, in a democratic state, or a republic like ours (since I know someone's going to bring it up) has the right and the authority to make rules? Is it only Congress? If so, then the court ought to strike it down. If the bureaucrats ought to be able to participate despite having no public mandate, then the court ought to keep it. Either way, the structure of the economy is pretty irrelevant to this question.

Bureaus of various flavors are delegated their authority by Congress. It was done to let specialists in the various fields make rules according to their domain knowledge. They're not elected so they, theoretically, don't have a political agenda they try and fulfill at the cost of their domain.

And honestly, even if these laws had to be rubber stamped by congress or the judiciary, they would be deferring to the very same specialists.

As an aside, in our Democratic Republic, laws are also created by judges, who are not generally elected into their positions.

The specialists are appointed by the President, a position which is entirely political. Appeasing their political boss is one of the specialists’ job requirements. Why? Because if they don’t they get fired. Presidents from both political parties have gone to court in order to ensure this is so.

Limiting the power vested in the executive branch is a necessary step to keep our three branch system working.

And while common law is created by judges, it is always possible to pass a law that overrides it.

> They're not elected so they, theoretically, don't have a political agenda they try and fulfill at the cost of their domain.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm.

> And honestly, even if these laws had to be rubber stamped by congress or the judiciary, they would be deferring to the very same specialists.

Sure, but making Congress rubber stamp them means there is oversight from the public. The argument is not 'bureaucrats and technocrats should not be involved in crafting rules', but rather 'Congress should also be involved in crafting rules so that the judiciary is not asked to then comment on those rules'.

> As an aside, in our Democratic Republic, laws are also created by judges, who are not generally elected into their positions.

Laws are not created by judges. This is a major problem which the court is hopefully going to address. Right now, as the article states, they get a lot of cases where they're asked to comment on rules that congress did not pass, and then yes, they start to act like legislators. If they strike this down, then the court will not be asked to legislate so often. Like it or not, a rule backed by an act of congress is much more likely to stand, since the courts are typically reticent to strike down laws passed by Congress itself.

I’m curious: what policies are conservatives implementing that are not about removing protections? I’m genuinely curious, because all I hear about is like loosening child labor laws for factories and butcheries, voting against policies designed to protect women against domestic abuse, etc. Restricting access to certain books, restricting medical decisions of doctors, etc.

Ultimately legal protections are a prevention of something. Many people against some of these things are against the government preventing working/hiring/doing and tend to see the policies as increasing costs for marginal improvement/protection.

> putting aside the culture war issues

> conservatives just want to enslave the population to corporate overlords and billionaires

Doesn't seem like you put it aside when you made this comment. Is that really the most charitable way to you can describe 45-50% of your country's citizens?