News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Supreme Court guts agency power in seismic Chevron ruling by rayiner on Friday June 28, 2024 @11:53PM (#40827781)
The reaction to this case—which decided nothing other than courts should be the ones to interpret laws, something obvious to any child who has taken 8th grade civics—confirms my suspicion that democrats just don’t believe in the rule of law.
Re:Supreme Court guts agency power in seismic Chevron ruling by intended on Saturday June 29, 2024 @02:50AM (#40828360)
The law includes precedent.

If the court had a 50-50 split, then yes, your argument would carry merit. We can all disagree with court rulings, especially if we have experience in a domain.

Our opinions can be right or wrong. However I think everyone can agree that a skewed court will never be trusted when its majority votes along party lines.

Re:Supreme Court guts agency power in seismic Chevron ruling by rayiner on Saturday June 29, 2024 @08:09AM (#40829821)
What is a “skewed court?” We had a Democrat-majority court for decades after FDR won a series of key elections. We now have a Republican majority court because of Reagan, Bush, and Trump. Biden’s recent implosion will likely cement the 6-3 majority for some time.

Democrat-appointees made huge changes to the constitution when we had a “skewed” court going the other way. I think those decisions were terribly wrong as a legal matter, but what’s dangerous is the effort to make it seem like they were illegitimate through the rhetoric that’s being spewed these days.

Re:Supreme Court guts agency power in seismic Chevron ruling by intended on Monday July 01, 2024 @07:20AM (#40844661)
This is an old comment, but I thought it was worth addressing since it brings up the point of rhetoric.

The current crop of judges is absurdly partisan. This is no ordinary position, these judges are not regular Joes. Their opinions, their intellect, their fairness and open mindedness to address a case on its merits, is what their entire life time appointment is about. Being a Judge.

Read Alito's dissenting opinion on Murthy. He depicts (not interpret) the whole case as government censorship.

Mind you, this is the case where the government would have had to invent time travel to be culpable. > Plus, Facebook started targeting her content before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC, page 3- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf