Roberts joins liberals in criticizing ‘shadow docket’ pollution ruling

[CaughtInThe]

GET ALL SANE PEOPLE TO REGISTER AND VOTE.

THIS TRUMP ERA MUST END!!!!

 

[TomFitz]

The wet dream of conservatives since the 80s

It’s one of the many reasons why big oil is a principal financier of the Federalist Society.

 

[Lovebug]

"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.

It shouldn't be a con vs lib issue. Why would one cheer that yet another liberal has just joined the court but then moan about radicalization of the court? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
Again, it shouldn't be a con vs lib issue.

 

[j brown's body]

That would be the Hughes or Warren courts, both of which inflated government authority and power at the expense of the citizenry.

The Warren court protected individual rights against government perhaps more than any other court in history.

 

[GummyVitamins]

We can't know that. The decision was released without reasoning.

The Soliciter General for the EPA admitted to the Supreme Court that the district judge didn't have the authority and wrongly vacated the rule. Both sides agreed and told the Supreme Court that the district judge was wrong. What other outcome was expected from the emergency request? Do you think the Supreme Court should have ignored that and delayed judgement when it was completely obvious to everyone that the previous ruling was unjust? This is the result from a hack of a San Francisco judge acting like a maniac for political reasons. This reminds me of Biden saying the eviction moratorium was illegal, but he'll tie it up in courts for a while so he'll get what he wants for a little while since it takes time for the wheels of justice to take offense. That's what this previous judgement was. It's an obvious abuse of power and the Supreme Court needs to strike that down quickly.

 

[Taylor]

Kagan whining about the "shadow docket" - again? I wonder if the other justices called her out on her "catchy but worn-out rhetoric" this time or merely rolled their eyes?

 

[TomFitz]

Kagan whining about the "shadow docket" - again? I wonder if the other justices called her out on her "catchy but worn-out rhetoric" this time or merely rolled their eyes?

It really is pathetic watching right wingers endorse letting right wing radicals on the Supreme Court rule by fiat, with no written opinion, no hearing, and response.

I guess some folks on the far right would really feel more comforatable living in a dictatorship. After all, many still openly support a man who wanted to suspend the Constituion and rule by decree.

 

[Taylor]

It really is pathetic watching right wingers endorse letting right wing radicals on the Supreme Court rule by fiat, with no written opinion, no hearing, and response.

I guess some folks on the far right would really feel more comforatable living in a dictatorship. After all, many still openly support a man who wanted to suspend the Constituion and rule by decree.

More tired, overblown rhetoric evincing ignorance of the impact and countenance of a temporary stay.

 

[GummyVitamins]

It really is pathetic watching right wingers endorse letting right wing radicals on the Supreme Court rule by fiat, with no written opinion, no hearing, and response.

I guess some folks on the far right would really feel more comforatable living in a dictatorship. After all, many still openly support a man who wanted to suspend the Constituion and rule by decree.

This is the typical response (nothing) given when the Supreme Court accepts an emergency request. The fact that the liberal justices on the court preferred to keep an illegal ruling (as considered by both sides of the case) on the books for up to a year until they had time to treat an emergency request like a standard request is absurd. This radical judge clearly overstepped their authority, there’s no debate on that. It’s just the left crying that the court overruled an illegal order under the emergency process because they felt an extreme and blatant abuse of judicial power wasn’t an emergency.

 

[Luce]

God knows we need more pollution in our streams.

 

[highroller]

God knows we need more pollution in our streams.

I don’t know about God but I do know about baby boomers loving to pollute. My dad used to tell me the dump oil in the river. I told him I could take it to the store and recycle it he just stared at me blankly like I was an alien.

 

[highroller]

This is the typical response (nothing) given when the Supreme Court accepts an emergency request. The fact that the liberal justices on the court preferred to keep an illegal ruling (as considered by both sides of the case) on the books for up to a year until they had time to treat an emergency request like a standard request is absurd. This radical judge clearly overstepped their authority, there’s no debate on that. It’s just the left crying that the court overruled an illegal order under the emergency process because they felt an extreme and blatant abuse of judicial power wasn’t an emergency.

Considering the damage corporations can do with this ruling in place it is a real mind-**** that they would issue this type of ruling.

This isn’t a difference of opinion; this is saying that they can pollute water ways that affect other people. You and I can’t do anything to stop them.

 

[Luce]

I don’t know about God but I do know about baby boomers loving to pollute. My dad used to tell me the dump oil in the river. I told him I could take it to the store and recycle it he just stared at me blankly like I was an alien.

"After you finish dumping oil in the river, we'll go fishing."

 

[Chase Morgan]

It really is pathetic watching right wingers endorse letting right wing radicals on the Supreme Court rule by fiat, with no written opinion, no hearing, and response.

I guess some folks on the far right would really feel more comforatable living in a dictatorship. After all, many still openly support a man who wanted to suspend the Constituion and rule by decree.

Good stuff, Tommy

They're more than just a bunch pathetic righties...

They're anti-democracy, pro-authoritarianism, un-American pieces of human FILTH...

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

"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.

yup, they are a disgrace. how the hell anybody would be OK with rules that allow companies to pollute water and everything else is absolute madness.

They have been making many rulings without any arguments and legal cases. All the right wing whining about the courts ahd politicizing it are projection like all the rest of the bullshit they project about. republicans stacked the courts with complete corporate hacks and they always rule in favor of corporations over people. SCOTUS should be about protecting people, not greedy businesses that only care about max profit at any cost

 

[highroller]

"After you finish dumping oil in the river, we'll go fishing."

He’s too busy watching Fox News for the “truth”

 

[OpportunityCost]

The Warren court protected individual rights against government perhaps more than any other court in history.

I don't disagree. But at the same time they increased government power and authority. They made some very controversial decisions that have cemented into our society over time, but were radical for the 60s.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You would have a point if it were not for the fact that this maneuver was done without any arguments, court hearings, or any written decision whatsoever.

The 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.

The EPA has had the power to regulate discharges into Recieving Waters of the United States since it’s inception. NPDES Permits are required for discharge into rivers and tributaries.

The Army Corps of Engineers frequently has jurisdiction as well.

Nah. The case the court decided 9-0 was one in which the EPA decided they could fine someone for as long as they wanted while making no move for a judgment on the legality of their order. The EPA frequently goes past its mandate with promulgated regulations. The interpretations of the clean air and waters act has been such a law that the EPA has widened considerably by defining navigable waters in ways that were not intended.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I agree you authoritarians love the rule making ability of 5 people.

Nah, we love allowing people to make their own choices, but are forced to go through SCOTUS because stupid Democrat legislators think a law is needed for every single facet of life.

 

[highroller]

Nah, we love allowing people to make their own choices, but are forced to go through SCOTUS because stupid Democrat legislators think a law is needed for every single facet of life.

Abortion, civil rights, consumer rights

you don’t believe in choice. That ship has sailed long ago. At this point you’re only lying to yourself. No one else believes your lies.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Considering the damage corporations can do with this ruling in place it is a real mind-**** that they would issue this type of ruling.

This isn’t a difference of opinion; this is saying that they can pollute water ways that affect other people. You and I can’t do anything to stop them.

Nope. They still have to follow the regulations from the law, the law is limited to the regulations written there not whatever the EPA decides to expand it to. They still can't blatantly dump into rivers and lakes.

 

[highroller]

Nope. They still have to follow the regulations from the law, the law is limited to the regulations written there not whatever the EPA decides to expand it to. They still can't blatantly dump into rivers and lakes.

And yet the court is allowing it. Also it’s not what they are or not allowing it’s the strategy on how they arrived at that.

It seems you’re perfectly OK with the strategy as long as it fits your ideology.

because conservatives don’t believe in democracy.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Abortion, civil rights, consumer rights

you don’t believe in choice. That ship has sailed long ago. At this point you’re only lying to yourself. No one else believes your lies.

I am neutral on abortion because I am just not sure at what point its a life, like most people.
On civil rights, I believe everyone should be treated equally under the law, again, like most people.
Consumer rights, I am a consumer, you are making a stupid argument with that one.

You have no idea what I believe, try focusing on ideas, not people, your responses are poor arguments and just look petty.

 

[OpportunityCost]

And yet the court is allowing it

Is that so? Please, show you know what you are posting about. Show what the prior controversy before the lower court was and what it regarded.

 

[TomFitz]

More tired, overblown rhetoric evincing ignorance of the impact and countenance of a temporary stay.

I can read. The court granted a stay pending an appeal to the circuit court.

This is not normally done. And it requires the injured party to show that they will suffer “irrepressible harm”/

No such presentation was made. No hearing was held. And no explanation was offered for the decision.