SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion) II: Rape Isn't On My Calendar

[mallister]

that's hardly unreasonable. be nice to see that more often.

[Tyrath]

Watch the video. He still manages to sound like an idiot.

[Yabby]

So after reading the dissenting opinions with the wife, we debated a bit about it. She hates that they did a good job of writing it and feels it was reasoned well. The problem I have it with is you know, 100%, that everyone in the dissenting opinion would change their argument on textualism if this was about the second amendment. You could literally take that dissent, and use it to rip the second amendment apart with the limited knowledge the writers had with how powerful guns became.

[Gredival]

So after reading the dissenting opinions with the wife, we debated a bit about it. She hates that they did a good job of writing it and feels it was reasoned well. The problem I have it with is you know, 100%, that everyone in the dissenting opinion would change their argument on textualism if this was about the second amendment. You could literally take that dissent, and use it to rip the second amendment apart with the limited knowledge the writers had with how powerful guns became.

Gorsuch's opinion could be considered textualist because it takes the stance "orientation and gender identification aren't clearly enunciated and they may not have been intended, but they are clearly covered by the plain language of the statute" whereas Alito's is non-textualist because it is looking for the intent behind the word sex.

Textualism becomes whatever the conservative Justice wants it to mean.

[Gredival]

[Kaslo]

#SCOTUS rules against Trump administration in challenge to decision to end #DACA program, which allowed noncitizens brought to this country illegally as children to apply for protection from deportation, holding decision was arbitrary and capricious

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statu...443387392?s=20

[archibaldcrane]

5-4 with Roberts joining the libs

[archibaldcrane]

Pretty incredible that Trump, the guy who won the white house on an anti-immigrant, anti-Obama platform, was unable in 4 years as president to undo an Obama pro-immigrant executive order.

[archibaldcrane]

Extremely true:

https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/s...834801669?s=19

[Kaslo]

Extremely true:

https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/s...834801669?s=19

Yup

[Daydreamer]

Extremely true:

https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/s...834801669?s=19

Pretty much. NPR just had a thing about Robert's comments on it which was summed up as "you could have easily had a case for this but you didn't do your freaking homework and based on the arguments given I'm going to side with the libs."

[Fhloston]

They keep dabbing on Trump lmao. Shit is beautiful.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Kirin]

I'm kind of scratching my head at what homework is needed for the executive branch to un-do an executive memo. Why is anything even required for something like that that was not passed by congress?

[Kaslo]

I'm kind of scratching my head at what homework is needed for the executive branch to un-do an executive memo. Why is anything even required for something like that that was not passed by congress?

*sigh* okay this is a long one.

The transfer of legislative (regulations) or judicial (administrative judges) authority to an executive agency requires a certain level of oversight for checks and balances purposes. That comes in the form of the Administrative Procedures Act. This lays out the procedures an agency has to follow to enact/repeal/amend a regulation (called rulemaking), or procedures the agency must follow in enforcing said regulation (administrative judicial proceedings). Generally for regulations, rulemaking procedures require the agency to propose a rule then publish the rule for comment. The agency then has to consider those comment and address serious concerns raised in its decision to accept or reject the proposed rule.

[Vaspinne]

So in this case, Trumpito and his croonies made either no effort or really shitty efforts at their comments towards the rule and thus SCOTUS dunked on their attempt to reverse it?

[archibaldcrane]

The arguments they were making in court to change the rule were so obviously in contradiction with their (Trump's) public statements outside the court that the court was unwilling to take their fig leaf argument at face value.

[Kirin]

*sigh* okay this is a long one.

The transfer of legislative (regulations) or judicial (administrative judges) authority to an executive agency requires a certain level of oversight for checks and balances purposes. That comes in the form of the Administrative Procedures Act. This lays out the procedures an agency has to follow to enact/repeal/amend a regulation (called rulemaking), or procedures the agency must follow in enforcing said regulation (administrative judicial proceedings). Generally for regulations, rulemaking procedures require the agency to propose a rule then publish the rule for comment. The agency then has to consider those comment and address serious concerns raised in its decision to accept or reject the proposed rule.

Gotcha.

Is there anything in place to allow said agency to not be beholden to a strong social push such as prohibition or 9/11 aftermath that would have these decisions being made on feeling vs law? Or is the intended purpose to have this oversight work more off public opinion than a judgement?

[Kaslo]

Gotcha.

Is there anything in place to allow said agency to not be beholden to a strong social push such as prohibition or 9/11 aftermath that would have these decisions being made on feeling vs law? Or is the intended purpose to have this oversight work more off public opinion than a judgement?

Generally speaking agency decisions can be reversed and remanded to the agency in the following circumstances:

(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts.

So basically, your rule cannot be unlawful and it has to be supported by substantive evidence. It also has to follow all procedures. The big catch all is arbitrary and capricious. The most common definition I've seen for A&C is:

(A) entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,
(B) offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise,
(C) failed to base its decision on consideration of the relevant factors, or
(D) made a clear error of judgment.

[Kirin]

So basically, your rule cannot be unlawful and it has to be supported by substantive evidence. It also has to follow all procedures. The big catch all is arbitrary and capricious. The most common definition I've seen for A&C is:

(A) entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,
(B) offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise,
(C) failed to base its decision on consideration of the relevant factors, or
(D) made a clear error of judgment.

Okay, thanks.

So B was really the big reason this was torpedoed then.

[Tyrath]

Ya I'm leaning towards Archi

Nvm. Spoilered for large

Spoiler: show