Is the Supreme Court moving too fast — or not fast enough? Weigh in below! 🏛️ SCOTUS overturns another precedent [https://lnkd.in/d59vnr5j] 🏈 $5 billion flag down on NFL/DirecTV play [https://lnkd.in/gzJuQwTu] 🏠 Finally — a buyer’s housing market [https://lnkd.in/eT3acpm5] Subscribe to our weekly Wrap-Up newsletter! [https://lnkd.in/dQSsfSNx] By: John C Abell Cate Chapman Jake Perez Max Lockie
It's been a while, but even I remember from grade school that Congress's job is writing, debating, and passing laws. They've largely abdicated that job in recent decades, writing vague legislation with countless gaps. SCOTUS reminded us that empowering unelected bureaucrats & regulators to make "law" that addresses this ambiguity isn't the answer.
It's both frightening and interesting to see the Judicial Branch of government taking power from the other branches in violation of precedent. In the end, their whole power of interpretation of the constitution and determining the constitutionality of laws is also based upon precedent. The same can be said of executive orders And just like executive orders, the erosion of our system of checks and balances, the erosion of the distribution of power away from states and municipalities and towards the federal government is very scary...whether you agree with the specific policies being enacted through the executive office, the supreme court, or not.
David Bruns
1w
There are some things that the Supreme Court certainly could've already addressed and have chosen not to. However, this is one case that I'm glad they finally addressed. The Chevron Doctrine is an abuse of power that agencies like the EPA, ATF and FDA (just to name a few) have been using for decades. Agencies whose heads are appointed rather than elected should have their power and authority restricted to only that which Congress clearly dictates. Anything beyond that is a gross abuse of power. Allowing these departments to make rulings on ambiguous issues is both immoral and unconstitutional. Finally, something is being done to try and clean up the swamp; and I'm so glad that it's happening.
Bryan Monks
1w
Maybe, just maybe, this will provide the impetus for agencies to write rules and regulations that are no longer ambiguous in nature. Too long have gov't agencies depended on shady rules that only they are allowed to interpret. This nation was formed with three DISTINCT branches of government. Ambiguous rules and regulations blur the lines between those branches. I commend the SCOTUS for their path to return us to a Constitutional Republic.
Randall F.
1w
LinkedIn News needs to stay away from politics. The only reason this site is useful is that most discussions are business related. But LinkedIn's CEO can't seem to resist getting involved in the no-win situation of discussing politics. If it continues, many people's LinkedIn accounts will go the way of their Facebook accounts (abandoned).
Matthew Reed
1w
The supreme court is just supporting the constitution as intended.
The Supreme Court is making a mockery of The Constitution, Democracy, and of the Judicial branch function in general. A true Judge must cast aside political alignments and analyze The Law in its purity. Analyze proposed laws by the Legislative Branch with Focus and Clarity as to how they apply to We the People. They are called SCOTUS now. A Kingdom? The seats of a new Authoritative Fascist State? Things do not bode well for our Democracy.
There's no consensus on whether they're too fast or slow, and it likely depends on the specific case and your own perspective. Critics argue the Court is issuing rulings with major societal impacts too quickly, without thorough consideration. They point to recent decisions on abortion, guns, and the environment as examples. They believe rushing these decisions can have negative consequences and destabilize existing legal precedent. Others argue the Court is bogged down in bureaucracy and takes too long to issue decisions. This can leave important legal issues unresolved for years, creating uncertainty for businesses, governments, and individuals. Additionally, some argue the Court is slow to address pressing issues, such as campaign finance reform.
Sorry, I don’t have time to post anything right now. I’m busy watching the series finale of the United States…
US Department of Homeland Security
1w“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,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent from the ruling. “As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.” The decision has profound consequences, not only for the country’s rule of law but also for how agencies—such as those protecting the public against everything from pollution and contaminated food to workplace hazards and rising drug prices—are able to function. Today, however, the Supreme Court seized for both itself and lower-court judges a policymaking role that the Constitution did not intend for them to have. The court stripped many federal agencies tasked with protecting public health, public safety, and the environment—including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, to name just two—of their power to interpret the laws they carry out. Instead, federal judges now get to call the shots.