The entire dissent was a solid read, if you’re into that kind of stuff. Just another little choice quote which made me chuckle:

In sum, the majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled under- standings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them

Fantastic points, and I think that’s touched upon when the author talks about ‘brokenness’ towards the end. There’s systems that don’t work, and it’s not just issues of regulation that are needed to fix it. Much like progressives in the early 1900s had to radically rethink entire systems (new deal) we need similar ideas today to fix problems which are multifaceted and difficult. Affordable housing is infrastructure, unaffordable housing is not.

To be fair, congress could pass a law that explicitly states what the old Chevron decision did, that these agencies have power to set standards. That wouldn’t solve the broken court which should have been packed as soon as Biden took office but it would at least explicitly stop the federalist anti regulatory stance as it would be in the word of law.

any president can

oh nooo a warning whatever will they do

you can pack the court at anytime Joe, how about now

Locking comments, this has gone off the rails and devolved into hurling insults

There is no need to be tolerant towards the intolerant. If someone says they want to do some ethnic cleansing, that’s not exactly a nice gesture and pushing back against that message is both cool and good.

I don’t want to discount the findings too harshly, because I believe that democrats have a ton of issues with their voters in general and can only go on promising everything but delivering nothing for so long before people wisen up, but I do want to just gently remind everyone how accurate polling was in the 2016 and 2020 election cycles and its general decline among the population as a way to understand how people vote. Polling groups have not adapted to the times and frequently demand far too much out of a population which is overburdened and simply not interested in engaging with pollsters through archaic mediums and conventional means of identifying who is eligible to be polled are not applicable to a modern populace.

Well stated. Once again, thank you for all the hard work you do around here!

So I’m not familiar with why that particular judge was criticized, but you’ll note that the entirety of arguments and discussion surround the brief and response letters which were submitted to the supreme court. It’s possible that Cannon was stepping outside what was presented, which would warrant criticism. The supreme court never steps outside what is presented, except when it’s necessary to understand what is being presented - for example they may call upon other legal text or rulings in order to fully frame what is and is not in scope with regards to the presented case or to understand precisely what a particular lawyer is arguing for or against.

But I also think that the fact that the supreme court is the final court which gets to have say on a matter lends them to pontificate in depth about some issues that other courts may not be given latitude to do the same because it may address issues which are currently working their way through the court system or may be called upon as a matter of jurisprudence in the future. The entire text of every decision they make can have consequences on lower courts and understanding the limits and the spirit of law they weigh in on and as of such it’s important to fully understand the exact claims being made and appropriately scope where the response lies and whether certain issues could or should be weighed in upon during that case.

That is super common in supreme court cases. They really like to explore the legality of each potential argument in a lot of depth.

A long shot in what way? That you think they’ll find in favor of trump?

Biden has already made it clear he has no intention of packing the court, I cannot imagine for the life of me that this will change

Political history, especially in the house of representatives, paints a vivid picture of long term Republican thinking. Their ability to canvas and take over local government as well as mobilize their voting based is absolutely unrivaled by any other political party in the US. Think tanks from the right have been publishing political playbooks for decades which outline their thinking and planning on both short and long term issues and this shouldn’t be dismissed as not thinking ahead.

A compulsive liar will lie about anything, stop listening entirely

You have a point that jobs should match the employees and generally speaking men are larger and more muscular than women, but you do know power tools exist, right? You also realize that output is not purely about physical capacity but also mental and emotional buy in? And that construction isn’t purely about nailing boards in place but doing things in the right order at the right time with the right tools and planning appropriately?

I think you’re making too many broad generalizations here and over stating the importance of gender on job performance. I think there are more salient points to be made about job seeking strategies between men and women and how that should affect hiring strategies and gender disparities in certain fields. Women tend to prefer more work flexibility (malleable hours, flexible vacation time, ability to make time to pick up kids from school etc) than men and women tend to be more risk averse than men and this is reflected in the jobs they choose and are recruited for.

My dude Scalia died years ago lmao

Look I hate the guy plenty, too, but this isn’t exactly solid ground to start a discussion with. The article provides plenty of ground to talk about linguistics or at the very least not just hate on him. I think it’s important to point out that he was not just a deplorable person, but that the very reasoning he used to argue in favor of his points was not based in reality.

This is quickly devolving into fighting, locking this up.