2023 SCOTUS Rulings

[GannonFan]

Until I see any evidence that these judges can be bought or influenced, then it's all just political noise for me. Thomas has probably been the most consistent judge on this court for as long as he's been there. Maybe not a great thing, since he's always been a bit of a whacko, but you can't say that he's wavered while he's been on the bench. Sotomayor has been really consistent as well, so hard to see evidence of any influence on her.

Should they do better in terms of 1) disclosing more and 2) not having things to actually disclose in the first place? Sure to both. But I hardly see a compromised court or one that lacks integrity. And for Congress, of all people, to be harping about this is probably the most clear case of cognitive dissonance we've seen since SG's been on a rant about misinformation with regards to Ukraine.

The Supreme Court is losing cred by the day and a lot of that is Clarence Thomas' fault.

So says you. But there is a lot to the idea that the Democrats, who ignored the Court for the longest time, have made it a point in the last decade to heap a lot of Qanon-type conspiracy stuff about the Court in an attempt to make it more of a political argument so they can win votes. The Court isn't really any different than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago, other than it's judicial temperment. Yes, they've certainly pushed more to the originalist line of legal theory, but that's about it. On the whole, they are pretty intelligent, well-qualified jurists, no matter where their appointments came from.

But you can certainly track a series of Democratic party initiatives, probably stemming back to the Gore/Bush debacle in 2000, through the messy confirmation hearings for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, to Obama using a State of the Union to verbally castigate justices in attendance who can't respond back, to Sheldon Whitehouse's decade's long rant that dark money controls the SCOTUS (but seemingly just the courts), to pushes to pack the Court, to allowing and condoning protests directly on the steps of justice's homes, and now to these incomplete and selective investigations of conflicts of interests, to diminish the credibility of the Court and to make it as political as possible. And hey, the GOP did their part in this when they rolled the dice and didn't move on the Garland nomination. Certainly within the rules to do what they did, but it certainly raised the political stakes and brought that focus to the Court.

But again, from a legal credibility, show me where the Court is making incorrect decisions or, as implied by current headlines, possibly corrupt decisions? It's one thing to say they are compromised, but it's something else entirely to prove it through the opinions they write or the decisions they hand down. Waiting for someone to actually prove that.

[kalm]

The Supreme Court is losing cred by the day and a lot of that is Clarence Thomas' fault.

So says you. But there is a lot to the idea that the Democrats, who ignored the Court for the longest time, have made it a point in the last decade to heap a lot of Qanon-type conspiracy stuff about the Court in an attempt to make it more of a political argument so they can win votes. The Court isn't really any different than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago, other than it's judicial temperment. Yes, they've certainly pushed more to the originalist line of legal theory, but that's about it. On the whole, they are pretty intelligent, well-qualified jurists, no matter where their appointments came from.

But you can certainly track a series of Democratic party initiatives, probably stemming back to the Gore/Bush debacle in 2000, through the messy confirmation hearings for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, to Obama using a State of the Union to verbally castigate justices in attendance who can't respond back, to Sheldon Whitehouse's decade's long rant that dark money controls the SCOTUS (but seemingly just the courts), to pushes to pack the Court, to allowing and condoning protests directly on the steps of justice's homes, and now to these incomplete and selective investigations of conflicts of interests, to diminish the credibility of the Court and to make it as political as possible. And hey, the GOP did their part in this when they rolled the dice and didn't move on the Garland nomination. Certainly within the rules to do what they did, but it certainly raised the political stakes and brought that focus to the Court.

But again, from a legal credibility, show me where the Court is making incorrect decisions or, as implied by current headlines, possibly corrupt decisions? It's one thing to say they are compromised, but it's something else entirely to prove it through the opinions they write or the decisions they hand down. Waiting for someone to actually prove that.

Start with…have you seen the Thomas-Kellyanne Conway-Leonard Leo news reports from the last 12 hours?

[GannonFan]

So says you. But there is a lot to the idea that the Democrats, who ignored the Court for the longest time, have made it a point in the last decade to heap a lot of Qanon-type conspiracy stuff about the Court in an attempt to make it more of a political argument so they can win votes. The Court isn't really any different than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago, other than it's judicial temperment. Yes, they've certainly pushed more to the originalist line of legal theory, but that's about it. On the whole, they are pretty intelligent, well-qualified jurists, no matter where their appointments came from.

But you can certainly track a series of Democratic party initiatives, probably stemming back to the Gore/Bush debacle in 2000, through the messy confirmation hearings for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, to Obama using a State of the Union to verbally castigate justices in attendance who can't respond back, to Sheldon Whitehouse's decade's long rant that dark money controls the SCOTUS (but seemingly just the courts), to pushes to pack the Court, to allowing and condoning protests directly on the steps of justice's homes, and now to these incomplete and selective investigations of conflicts of interests, to diminish the credibility of the Court and to make it as political as possible. And hey, the GOP did their part in this when they rolled the dice and didn't move on the Garland nomination. Certainly within the rules to do what they did, but it certainly raised the political stakes and brought that focus to the Court.

But again, from a legal credibility, show me where the Court is making incorrect decisions or, as implied by current headlines, possibly corrupt decisions? It's one thing to say they are compromised, but it's something else entirely to prove it through the opinions they write or the decisions they hand down. Waiting for someone to actually prove that.

Start with…have you seen the Thomas-Kellyanne Conway-Leonard Leo news reports from the last 12 hours?

Link?

[Baldy]

"just broke"

The ties were obvious. It's just that the 'objective' media chose not to amplify her connections.

If the ties were so obvious why didn't you start a thread?

Because I don't care. I just love watching you and klam get torqued up and throw shade whenever the hypocrisy is thrown back in your faces.

[kalm]

Start with…have you seen the Thomas-Kellyanne Conway-Leonard Leo news reports from the last 12 hours?

Link?

So you haven’t and that’s ok.

It’s widely reported. Choose your favorite source.

It’s a broken system. Thomas isn’t alone and it’s likely he among be in legal trouble over this just like Pelosi or Feinstein’s investment portfolios.

Heck, Assad won the Syrian election with 98% of the vote. Corruption was never “proven” so….

[GannonFan]

Link?

So you haven’t and that’s ok.

It’s widely reported. Choose your favorite source.

It’s a broken system. Thomas isn’t alone and it’s likely he among be in legal trouble over this just like Pelosi or Feinstein’s investment portfolios.

Heck, Assad won the Syrian election with 98% of the vote. Corruption was never “proven” so….

Again, show me where he's changed his ruling or opinion based on a donor or friend. Where has he done something on the bench to sully a decision or the Court? I already agreed that the disclosures should be more complete and that they shouldn't have as much to disclose, but the SCOTUS issues are far less egregious than the insider trading that goes on in Congress anymore by apparently everyone. You throw out the idea that he could be in "legal trouble" when there's no indication that he broke any laws and could actually be in any legal trouble. Ethically questionable? Sure, that's something. Legal trouble? Classic gaslighting. Your favorite sources appear to have an ax to grind.

And holy cow, did you just compare Clarence Thomas having a rich friend to Bashar Al-Assad systematically murdering wide swaths of his population? That's gaslighting to the nth degree. Yikes!

[kalm]

So you haven’t and that’s ok.

It’s widely reported. Choose your favorite source.

It’s a broken system. Thomas isn’t alone and it’s likely he among be in legal trouble over this just like Pelosi or Feinstein’s investment portfolios.

Heck, Assad won the Syrian election with 98% of the vote. Corruption was never “proven” so….

Again, show me where he's changed his ruling or opinion based on a donor or friend. Where has he done something on the bench to sully a decision or the Court? I already agreed that the disclosures should be more complete and that they shouldn't have as much to disclose, but the SCOTUS issues are far less egregious than the insider trading that goes on in Congress anymore by apparently everyone. You throw out the idea that he could be in "legal trouble" when there's no indication that he broke any laws and could actually be in any legal trouble. Ethically questionable? Sure, that's something. Legal trouble? Classic gaslighting. Your favorite sources appear to have an ax to grind.

And holy cow, did you just compare Clarence Thomas having a rich friend to Bashar Al-Assad systematically murdering wide swaths of his population? That's gaslighting to the nth degree. Yikes!

Yes! And Kafka’s bug was real.

So for the record, you’re ok with no ethical and legal oversight of SCOTUS?

As long as it’s legal… why would you have a problem with any of it including congressional insider trading?

I mean it’s all legal, right? Just like Assad’s election.

[GannonFan]

Again, show me where he's changed his ruling or opinion based on a donor or friend. Where has he done something on the bench to sully a decision or the Court? I already agreed that the disclosures should be more complete and that they shouldn't have as much to disclose, but the SCOTUS issues are far less egregious than the insider trading that goes on in Congress anymore by apparently everyone. You throw out the idea that he could be in "legal trouble" when there's no indication that he broke any laws and could actually be in any legal trouble. Ethically questionable? Sure, that's something. Legal trouble? Classic gaslighting. Your favorite sources appear to have an ax to grind.

And holy cow, did you just compare Clarence Thomas having a rich friend to Bashar Al-Assad systematically murdering wide swaths of his population? That's gaslighting to the nth degree. Yikes!

Yes! And Kafka’s bug was real.

So for the record, you’re ok with no ethical and legal oversight of SCOTUS?

As long as it’s legal… why would you have a problem with any of it including congressional insider trading?

I mean it’s all legal, right? Just like Assad’s election.

You keep dancing by the fact that I said there should be better ethical standards for the Court - both in disclosure and not even happening in the first place. This is now the third time I said it so hopefully your woeful reading comprehension will eventually pick it up.

But, those standards should come from the Court and only the Court. If Congress wants to hold judges to standards they have the tool to do so already in the Constitution in their impeachment power. Just because Congress is unable to overcome their political divisions to function as the Constitution lays out does not mean that we just bypass the Constitution to come up with some political remedy to a problem that's not really much of a problem.

As for Congressional insider trading, again, that needs to be dealt with by the Congress. They have the power to institute their own ethical guidelines for their members and they should. We as voters have the capability to impact that even more directly by voting in folks who make those ethical reforms a priority.

And again, what, if anything, this has to do with the election of the Sryian president/ruler is beyond me. You keep throwing that in there as if by doing so you are strengthening some argument. Frankly, it just looks like ineffectual flailing, but hey, we should all play to our strengths I guess.

[kalm]

Yes! And Kafka’s bug was real.

So for the record, you’re ok with no ethical and legal oversight of SCOTUS?

As long as it’s legal… why would you have a problem with any of it including congressional insider trading?

I mean it’s all legal, right? Just like Assad’s election.

You keep dancing by the fact that I said there should be better ethical standards for the Court - both in disclosure and not even happening in the first place. This is now the third time I said it so hopefully your woeful reading comprehension will eventually pick it up.

But, those standards should come from the Court and only the Court. If Congress wants to hold judges to standards they have the tool to do so already in the Constitution in their impeachment power. Just because Congress is unable to overcome their political divisions to function as the Constitution lays out does not mean that we just bypass the Constitution to come up with some political remedy to a problem that's not really much of a problem.

As for Congressional insider trading, again, that needs to be dealt with by the Congress. They have the power to institute their own ethical guidelines for their members and they should. We as voters have the capability to impact that even more directly by voting in folks who make those ethical reforms a priority.

And again, what, if anything, this has to do with the election of the Sryian president/ruler is beyond me. You keep throwing that in there as if by doing so you are strengthening some argument. Frankly, it just looks like ineffectual flailing, but hey, we should all play to our strengths I guess.

[UNI88]

You keep dancing by the fact that I said there should be better ethical standards for the Court - both in disclosure and not even happening in the first place. This is now the third time I said it so hopefully your woeful reading comprehension will eventually pick it up.

But, those standards should come from the Court and only the Court. If Congress wants to hold judges to standards they have the tool to do so already in the Constitution in their impeachment power. Just because Congress is unable to overcome their political divisions to function as the Constitution lays out does not mean that we just bypass the Constitution to come up with some political remedy to a problem that's not really much of a problem.

As for Congressional insider trading, again, that needs to be dealt with by the Congress. They have the power to institute their own ethical guidelines for their members and they should. We as voters have the capability to impact that even more directly by voting in folks who make those ethical reforms a priority.

And again, what, if anything, this has to do with the election of the Sryian president/ruler is beyond me. You keep throwing that in there as if by doing so you are strengthening some argument. Frankly, it just looks like ineffectual flailing, but hey, we should all play to our strengths I guess.

Are you intentionally ignoring what Ganny is saying and essentially debating with an imaginary opponent?

[kalm]

Are you intentionally ignoring what Ganny is saying and essentially debating with an imaginary opponent?

Ganny disagreed with Houndy’s assertion that the court is losing credibility. He went on to blame the Dems.

IE: he’s defending the court, or when convenient says nothing can be done about it anyway.

He’s defending legalized corruption. I also think he’s condoning poor ethics. Apparently for the sake of centrism. I feel the same is true when Dem justices and Dem congress critters are involved in insider trading.

Because…post partisan.

[houndawg]

The Supreme Court is losing cred by the day and a lot of that is Clarence Thomas' fault.

So says you. But there is a lot to the idea that the Democrats, who ignored the Court for the longest time, have made it a point in the last decade to heap a lot of Qanon-type conspiracy stuff about the Court in an attempt to make it more of a political argument so they can win votes. The Court isn't really any different than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago, other than it's judicial temperment. Yes, they've certainly pushed more to the originalist line of legal theory, but that's about it. On the whole, they are pretty intelligent, well-qualified jurists, no matter where their appointments came from.

But you can certainly track a series of Democratic party initiatives, probably stemming back to the Gore/Bush debacle in 2000, through the messy confirmation hearings for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, to Obama using a State of the Union to verbally castigate justices in attendance who can't respond back, to Sheldon Whitehouse's decade's long rant that dark money controls the SCOTUS (but seemingly just the courts), to pushes to pack the Court, to allowing and condoning protests directly on the steps of justice's homes, and now to these incomplete and selective investigations of conflicts of interests, to diminish the credibility of the Court and to make it as political as possible. And hey, the GOP did their part in this when they rolled the dice and didn't move on the Garland nomination. Certainly within the rules to do what they did, but it certainly raised the political stakes and brought that focus to the Court.

But again, from a legal credibility, show me where the Court is making incorrect decisions or, as implied by current headlines, possibly corrupt decisions? It's one thing to say they are compromised, but it's something else entirely to prove it through the opinions they write or the decisions they hand down. Waiting for someone to actually prove that.

Nobody said they were crooked, just that they're losing cred with the public. At that level even the appearance of impropriety is a big deal, (especially for a crowd that is exempt from any of the Codes of Ethics that apply to almost anyone else in the legal profession), and there has been plenty of it lately - from both sides. Although at least Sotomayor did disclose the cool $3,000,000 that the book company whose case she didn't recuse herself from fronted her for her book.

[UNI88]

Are you intentionally ignoring what Ganny is saying and essentially debating with an imaginary opponent?

Ganny disagreed with Houndy’s assertion that the court is losing credibility. He went on to blame the Dems.

IE: he’s defending the court, or when convenient says nothing can be done about it anyway.

He’s defending legalized corruption. I also think he’s condoning poor ethics. Apparently for the sake of centrism. I feel the same is true when Dem justices and Dem congress critters are involved in insider trading.

Because…post partisan.

Ganny isn't defending the court or legalized corruption. My interpretation of what he's saying is:

• What has happened might be unethical but is not illegal (like Congressional insider trading).
• The Court could and should police itself (like Congress could and should police itself). If these two points are condoning poor ethics then your and Houndy's defending/deflecting for Biden & Hunter is encouraging poor ethics.
• All of this is political noise to him (not everyone, just him), probably because he sees no evidence that the financial favors have influenced Thomas' decisions. That is a more rational perspective then running around like Chicken Little screaming about the sky falling every time there is an ethical kerfuffle involving Republicans/conservatives (especially while defending/deflection for ethical kerfuffles involving Democrats/liberals).
• "there is a lot to the idea that the Democrats, who ignored the Court for the longest time, have made it a point in the last decade to heap a lot of Qanon-type conspiracy stuff about the Court in an attempt to make it more of a political argument so they can win votes." Democrats have tried to delegitimize the court for their benefit. I personally don't think it's been Q-level BS but it's definitely been enough that Democratic/liberal complaints/comments about the legitimacy of the court are absurdly hypocritical.

A true post-partisan sees and points out the warts of both sides rather than attempting to focus attention on one side.

[houndawg]

If the ties were so obvious why didn't you start a thread?

Because I don't care. I just love watching you and klam get torqued up and throw shade whenever the hypocrisy is thrown back in your faces.

Well, which one is it?

[kalm]

Ganny disagreed with Houndy’s assertion that the court is losing credibility. He went on to blame the Dems.

IE: he’s defending the court, or when convenient says nothing can be done about it anyway.

He’s defending legalized corruption. I also think he’s condoning poor ethics. Apparently for the sake of centrism. I feel the same is true when Dem justices and Dem congress critters are involved in insider trading.

Because…post partisan.

Ganny isn't defending the court or legalized corruption. My interpretation of what he's saying is:

• What has happened might be unethical but is not illegal (like Congressional insider trading).
• The Court could and should police itself (like Congress could and should police itself). If these two points are condoning poor ethics then your and Houndy's defending/deflecting for Biden & Hunter is encouraging poor ethics.
• All of this is political noise to him (not everyone, just him), probably because he sees no evidence that the financial favors have influenced Thomas' decisions. That is a more rational perspective then running around like Chicken Little screaming about the sky falling every time there is an ethical kerfuffle involving Republicans/conservatives (especially while defending/deflection for ethical kerfuffles involving Democrats/liberals).
• "there is a lot to the idea that the Democrats, who ignored the Court for the longest time, have made it a point in the last decade to heap a lot of Qanon-type conspiracy stuff about the Court in an attempt to make it more of a political argument so they can win votes." Democrats have tried to delegitimize the court for their benefit. I personally don't think it's been Q-level BS but it's definitely been enough that Democratic/liberal complaints/comments about the legitimacy of the court are absurdly hypocritical.

A true post-partisan sees and points out the warts of both sides rather than attempting to focus attention on one side.

Yes…you pretty much regurgitated Ganny’s points. I disagree. Legalized corruption (again regardless of side - since you missed it) is the problem and/or lack of enforcement which creates a broken system.

I don’t know how to help you any further.

Sorry.

[UNI88]

Ganny isn't defending the court or legalized corruption. My interpretation of what he's saying is:

• What has happened might be unethical but is not illegal (like Congressional insider trading).
• The Court could and should police itself (like Congress could and should police itself). If these two points are condoning poor ethics then your and Houndy's defending/deflecting for Biden & Hunter is encouraging poor ethics.
• All of this is political noise to him (not everyone, just him), probably because he sees no evidence that the financial favors have influenced Thomas' decisions. That is a more rational perspective then running around like Chicken Little screaming about the sky falling every time there is an ethical kerfuffle involving Republicans/conservatives (especially while defending/deflection for ethical kerfuffles involving Democrats/liberals).
• "there is a lot to the idea that the Democrats, who ignored the Court for the longest time, have made it a point in the last decade to heap a lot of Qanon-type conspiracy stuff about the Court in an attempt to make it more of a political argument so they can win votes." Democrats have tried to delegitimize the court for their benefit. I personally don't think it's been Q-level BS but it's definitely been enough that Democratic/liberal complaints/comments about the legitimacy of the court are absurdly hypocritical.

A true post-partisan sees and points out the warts of both sides rather than attempting to focus attention on one side.

Yes…you pretty much regurgitated Ganny’s points. I disagree. Legalized corruption (again regardless of side - since you missed it) is the problem and/or lack of enforcement which creates a broken system.

I don’t know how to help you any further.

Sorry.

I agree that legalized corruption is A PART OF THE problem but I think bias contributes to the problem.

For example responding with "________________ should be impeached/indicted/thrown in jail" anytime a Republican/conservative does something unethical and with "________________ should be investigated and prosecuted if it is determined that they have broken the law" anytime someone brings up a Democrat/illiberal who has done something unethical is an example of bias (and not post-partisanship).

Both sides seem to look for reasons to question the legitimacy of of our institutions including the court anytime they aren't behaving the way that they want it to.

[kalm]

Yes…you pretty much regurgitated Ganny’s points. I disagree. Legalized corruption (again regardless of side - since you missed it) is the problem and/or lack of enforcement which creates a broken system.

I don’t know how to help you any further.

Sorry.

I agree that legalized corruption is A PART OF THE problem but I think bias contributes to the problem.

For example responding with "________________ should be impeached/indicted/thrown in jail" anytime a Republican/conservative does something unethical and with "________________ should be investigated and prosecuted if it is determined that they have broken the law" anytime someone brings up a Democrat/illiberal who has done something unethical is an example of bias (and not post-partisanship).

Both sides seem to look for reasons to question the legitimacy of of our institutions including the court anytime they aren't behaving the way that they want it to.

Or right now, one side is clearly caught in the headlights.

[UNI88]

I agree that legalized corruption is A PART OF THE problem but I think bias contributes to the problem.

For example responding with "________________ should be impeached/indicted/thrown in jail" anytime a Republican/conservative does something unethical and with "________________ should be investigated and prosecuted if it is determined that they have broken the law" anytime someone brings up a Democrat/illiberal who has done something unethical is an example of bias (and not post-partisanship).

Both sides seem to look for reasons to question the legitimacy of of our institutions including the court anytime they aren't behaving the way that they want it to.

Or right now, one side is clearly caught in the headlights.

And a biased illiberal MSM has nothing to do with that ...

[kalm]

Or right now, one side is clearly caught in the headlights.

And a biased illiberal MSM has nothing to do with that ...

The msm is in indeed illiberal…and corporate biased.

But no….I think this has more to do with MAGA target than the right-left bias of the msm.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of quality journalists out who skewer both parties.

[BDKJMU]

After SCOTUS slapped the EPA last year 6-3 in West Virginia vs EPA, which put limits on the fed’s authority to issue sweeping regulations to reduce carbon emissions from power plants,
http://www.reuters.com/legal/government ... 022-06-30/
SCOTUS slaps the EPA 9-0 in a victory for private property rights.

In an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito in the case known as Sackett v. EPA, the high court found that the agency’s interpretation of the wetlands covered under the Clean Water Act is “inconsistent” with the law’s text and structure, and the law extends only to “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies of water that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right.”

Five justices joined the majority opinion by Alito, while the remaining four — Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — concurred in the judgment.

The decision from the conservative court is the latest to target the authority of the EPA to police pollution. On the final day of its term last year, the high court limited the agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, dealing a blow to efforts to combat climate change.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-co ... water-act/

[BDKJMU]

A 9-0 decisionis a ‘MAGA’ court What a tool.

[GannonFan]

A 9-0 decisionis a ‘MAGA’ court What a tool.

To be fair, it was 9-0 in favor of the plaintiffs in this case (the homeowners), but it was 5-4 in terms of how far to extend the ruling and how to limit/expand the Clean Water Act. You're being a bit of a tool yourself when you gloss over that little tidbit.

Schumer is carrying water (pun intended) for the left's continued attack on the integrity of the Court, which is their modus operandi for the past two decades when they don't get what they want.

As for the decision, it's in line with what this Court has done before - when the law is vague over what is or isn't covered by the law, the Court says that Congress has to be clear and be the adjudicator on that, and that government agencies just can't fill that void when Congress doesn't act. In principle, I don't have a problem, per se, with that - Congress needs to do a far better job of writing legislation so that it's elected officials deciding policy. In this case, though, I do agree with the concurring opinion that the majority (the 5-4 majority) read it a little too narrow in terms of scope. By their reading, a body of water separated by even the tiniest sliver of land from the protected body of water could be off limits for coverage from the Clean Water Act. Certainly Congress needs to do a better job of writing legislation, but we don't need to go to the nth degree is pushing that back.

[kalm]

A 9-0 decisionis a ‘MAGA’ court What a tool.

To be fair, it was 9-0 in favor of the plaintiffs in this case (the homeowners), but it was 5-4 in terms of how far to extend the ruling and how to limit/expand the Clean Water Act. You're being a bit of a tool yourself when you gloss over that little tidbit.

Schumer is carrying water (pun intended) for the left's continued attack on the integrity of the Court, which is their modus operandi for the past two decades when they don't get what they want.

As for the decision, it's in line with what this Court has done before - when the law is vague over what is or isn't covered by the law, the Court says that Congress has to be clear and be the adjudicator on that, and that government agencies just can't fill that void when Congress doesn't act. In principle, I don't have a problem, per se, with that - Congress needs to do a far better job of writing legislation so that it's elected officials deciding policy. In this case, though, I do agree with the concurring opinion that the majority (the 5-4 majority) read it a little too narrow in terms of scope. By their reading, a body of water separated by even the tiniest sliver of land from the protected body of water could be off limits for coverage from the Clean Water Act. Certainly Congress needs to do a better job of writing legislation, but we don't need to go to the nth degree is pushing that back.

Yep on all counts. This is an example of why we end up with so many laws.

The idea here is a fairly simple concept. Water is a part of the commons and shit flows downstream.

[Skjellyfetti]

alabama congressional map upheld 5-4 as unconstitutional

[UNI88]

alabama congressional map upheld 5-4 as unconstitutional

Good.