- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 54,926
- Reaction score
- 51,811
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Everything but the facts of the case. The facts were that one judge wanted to reinstate an EPA rule that was struck down already as too broad and invasive to apply. The clean waters act was used to apply to any standing body of water, up to and including a ditch or puddle in a yard---not through the legislation but through an overly wide interpretation under the Obama administration. The immediate need is that one single lower court should not be able to reverse something that affects every state and the entire country."Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers. The five members of the court who granted the request from Louisiana, other states and the oil and gas industry did not explain their reasoning, which is common in emergency requests at the court.
But Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting along with Roberts and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said her conservative colleagues were turning what critics have called the court’s “shadow docket” into something it was never intended to be. ...Kagan said the applicants had waited months to bring the request and provided no evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Supreme Court did not intervene, which is one of the essential elements necessary for putting on hold a lower court’s order.
...Barrett in an address Monday told a California audience that in judging the court’s actions, citizens should read the court’s ruling. But a frequent criticism of the court’s “shadow docket” decisions is that often no reasoning is provided. That was true in Wednesday’s order."
Link
The radicalization of the court is underway. Shadow docket, no reasoning for their decisions. Barrett's comment is embarrassing.
Everything but the facts of the case. The facts were that one judge wanted to reinstate an EPA rule that was struck down already as too broad and invasive to apply. The clean waters act was used to apply to any standing body of water, up to and including a ditch or puddle in a yard---not through the legislation but through an overly wide interpretation under the Obama administration. The immediate need is that one single lower court should not be able to reverse something that affects every state and the entire country.
The emergency is a lower court setting policy for the entire US with a rule that was already struck down. Bad precedent.A rationale for using the shadow docket, but not a good reason, as even the plaintiffs didn't claim it was an emergency.
The emergency is a lower court setting policy for the entire US with a rule that was already struck down. Bad precedent.
I think these conservative judges are doing their best to have the chief justice vote with the dem picks more often than the R's. This is an abuse and at least the chief justice has the balls to say so."Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers. The five members of the court who granted the request from Louisiana, other states and the oil and gas industry did not explain their reasoning, which is common in emergency requests at the court.
But Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting along with Roberts and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said her conservative colleagues were turning what critics have called the court’s “shadow docket” into something it was never intended to be. ...Kagan said the applicants had waited months to bring the request and provided no evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Supreme Court did not intervene, which is one of the essential elements necessary for putting on hold a lower court’s order.
...Barrett in an address Monday told a California audience that in judging the court’s actions, citizens should read the court’s ruling. But a frequent criticism of the court’s “shadow docket” decisions is that often no reasoning is provided. That was true in Wednesday’s order."
Link
The radicalization of the court is underway. Shadow docket, no reasoning for their decisions. Barrett's comment is embarrassing.
LOL, no. Roberts voted with them. That's all. Your reasoning is flawed in its premise, no one is forcing Roberts to vote either way, he votes in the way he sees the constitutionality of the arguments.I think these conservative judges are doing their best to have the chief justice vote with the dem picks more often than the R's. This is an abuse and at least the chief justice has the balls to say so.
Look at the law being discussed, its the Clean air and water Act specifically navigable waters. What industrial concerns are arguing is they shouldn't need to wait to begin a project and spend time and money on it, only to have tribal concerns and environmental groups object and not only halt the process but shut it down after the project has begun. They wanted the 50 year precedent to be adhered to. They are objecting to the judge reinstating the Obama era reasoning, creating a nationwide ruling from a district court. The harm can be seen from numerous views, the easiest to suss out is that companies don't want to wait until they have irreparable harm before waiting months to get a verdict. They want a go ahead from current law.We can't know that. The decision was released without reasoning.
This court will go down as the most radical and activist in the history of this nation."Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers. The five members of the court who granted the request from Louisiana, other states and the oil and gas industry did not explain their reasoning, which is common in emergency requests at the court.
But Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting along with Roberts and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said her conservative colleagues were turning what critics have called the court’s “shadow docket” into something it was never intended to be. ...Kagan said the applicants had waited months to bring the request and provided no evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Supreme Court did not intervene, which is one of the essential elements necessary for putting on hold a lower court’s order.
...Barrett in an address Monday told a California audience that in judging the court’s actions, citizens should read the court’s ruling. But a frequent criticism of the court’s “shadow docket” decisions is that often no reasoning is provided. That was true in Wednesday’s order."
Link
The radicalization of the court is underway. Shadow docket, no reasoning for their decisions. Barrett's comment is embarrassing.
That would be the Hughes or Warren courts, both of which inflated government authority and power at the expense of the citizenry.This court will go down as the most radical and activist in the history of this nation.
You ain’t seen nothing yet, but you won’t see it as activist rulings because you’ll like the slant of the activism.That would be the Hughes or Warren courts, both of which inflated government authority and power at the expense of the citizenry.
"Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers. The five members of the court who granted the request from Louisiana, other states and the oil and gas industry did not explain their reasoning, which is common in emergency requests at the court.
But Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting along with Roberts and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said her conservative colleagues were turning what critics have called the court’s “shadow docket” into something it was never intended to be. ...Kagan said the applicants had waited months to bring the request and provided no evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Supreme Court did not intervene, which is one of the essential elements necessary for putting on hold a lower court’s order.
...Barrett in an address Monday told a California audience that in judging the court’s actions, citizens should read the court’s ruling. But a frequent criticism of the court’s “shadow docket” decisions is that often no reasoning is provided. That was true in Wednesday’s order."
Link
The radicalization of the court is underway. Shadow docket, no reasoning for their decisions. Barrett's comment is embarrassing.
The RWNJ supreme court is the end of our nation as we know it unless something happens."Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers. The five members of the court who granted the request from Louisiana, other states and the oil and gas industry did not explain their reasoning, which is common in emergency requests at the court.
But Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting along with Roberts and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said her conservative colleagues were turning what critics have called the court’s “shadow docket” into something it was never intended to be. ...Kagan said the applicants had waited months to bring the request and provided no evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Supreme Court did not intervene, which is one of the essential elements necessary for putting on hold a lower court’s order.
...Barrett in an address Monday told a California audience that in judging the court’s actions, citizens should read the court’s ruling. But a frequent criticism of the court’s “shadow docket” decisions is that often no reasoning is provided. That was true in Wednesday’s order."
Link
The radicalization of the court is underway. Shadow docket, no reasoning for their decisions. Barrett's comment is embarrassing.
Then why wouldn't they say so?The emergency is a lower court setting policy for the entire US with a rule that was already struck down. Bad precedent.
Then why didn't they say so?Look at the law being discussed, its the Clean air and water Act specifically navigable waters. What industrial concerns are arguing is they shouldn't need to wait to begin a project and spend time and money on it, only to have tribal concerns and environmental groups object and not only halt the process but shut it down after the project has begun. They wanted the 50 year precedent to be adhered to. They are objecting to the judge reinstating the Obama era reasoning, creating a nationwide ruling from a district court. The harm can be seen from numerous views, the easiest to suss out is that companies don't want to wait until they have irreparable harm before waiting months to get a verdict. They want a go ahead from current law.
District judges should have zero power to issue nation wide stays. SCOTUS has worked to curtail such things in the past. The shadow docket is a way for the court to say the merits are specious without having to explain and rule, essentially telling lower courts to quit being blatant **** ups.
The Roberts (LMAO) cort will top them all.That would be the Hughes or Warren courts, both of which inflated government authority and power at the expense of the citizenry.
Yep, progressives love authoritarianism so long as they get to decide who makes the rules.You ain’t seen nothing yet, but you won’t see it as activist rulings because you’ll like the slant of the activism.
oh the drama!The RWNJ supreme court is the end of our nation as we know it unless something happens.
I doubt the bill of rights will get shit upon anywhere near it did under the FDR regimeThe Roberts (LMAO) cort will top them all.
LOL because they don't on these type of decisions.Then why didn't they say so?
Seriously doubt it.The Roberts (LMAO) cort will top them all.
"Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers. The five members of the court who granted the request from Louisiana, other states and the oil and gas industry did not explain their reasoning, which is common in emergency requests at the court.
But Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting along with Roberts and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said her conservative colleagues were turning what critics have called the court’s “shadow docket” into something it was never intended to be. ...Kagan said the applicants had waited months to bring the request and provided no evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Supreme Court did not intervene, which is one of the essential elements necessary for putting on hold a lower court’s order.
...Barrett in an address Monday told a California audience that in judging the court’s actions, citizens should read the court’s ruling. But a frequent criticism of the court’s “shadow docket” decisions is that often no reasoning is provided. That was true in Wednesday’s order."
Link
The radicalization of the court is underway. Shadow docket, no reasoning for their decisions. Barrett's comment is embarrassing.
I agree you authoritarians love the rule making ability of 5 people.Yep, progressives love authoritarianism so long as they get to decide who makes the rules.
LOL because they don't on these type of decisions.
Plus, if you knew previous responses on the Clean Water and Air Act and that the EPA overreached completely, you would know that they prefer the EPA be restricted to the language of the act and not promulgate regulations that allow them to bypass court adjudicating arguments between the EPA and US citizens.
If you follow the history of the act and previous actions by the court to restrict the act, you would already know everything I typed.
The wet dream of conservatives since the 80sThe conservatives on the Court did big oil’s bidding, and did not explain themselves. They served one of the GOP’s core constituencies behind closed doors without comment or explanation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?