A Barrett court could carry on Trump's deregulatory agenda long after he's left the White House

[Beet]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-barrett-court-could-continue-trumps-deregulatory-agenda-long-after-hes-left-the-white-house-experts-say-2020-10-10

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The Chevron doctrine of deference to administrative agencies will likely become more limited.  In practice this will often mean more limited regulation, but also can mean stricter regulation, whichever is closer to the ordinary meaning of the law delegating the agency power to regulate. The burden of changing or creating regulation will fall more on Congress.

[KaiserDave]

Horrifying indeed

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Horrifying indeed

It won't be horrific, we have had Conservative Crts before

[KaiserDave]

Horrifying indeed

It won't be horrific, we have had Conservative Crts before

Thank you for your wisdom

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Horrifying indeed

It won't be horrific, we have had Conservative Crts before

Thank you for your wisdom

Dems are likely gonna have to live with Citizens United for the rest of our lives, with ACB, CJ Roberts was the 5/4 tie breaker in that decision and likely to keep Citizens United. If Biden replacd Ginsburg with a liberal Justice, he would have broke from a Conservative justices. This is either in a 6/3 or 6/5 Crt and D's aren't gonna get 13 the Rs will refuse a quorum like D's did

[Brittain33]

This is why Supreme Court Reform is needed more than ever. Let's hope we have a pro-democracy majority in Congress next year to make it a reality.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This is why Supreme Court Reform is needed more than ever. Let's hope we have a pro-democracy majority in Congress next year to make it a reality.

What kind of reform do you have in mind?

[MABA 2020]

Not if dems pack the court

[Stranger in a strange land]

The Chevron doctrine of deference to administrative agencies will likely become more limited.  In practice this will often mean more limited regulation, but also can mean stricter regulation, whichever is closer to the ordinary meaning of the law delegating the agency power to regulate. The burden of changing or creating regulation will fall more on Congress.

This sounds like something that could become a two-edged sword for Republicans, because to cite just one example, a Republican-run EPA won't be able to loosen restrictions on oil drilling and coal plants as easily.

[Beet]

The Chevron doctrine of deference to administrative agencies will likely become more limited.  In practice this will often mean more limited regulation, but also can mean stricter regulation, whichever is closer to the ordinary meaning of the law delegating the agency power to regulate. The burden of changing or creating regulation will fall more on Congress.

This sounds like something that could become a two-edged sword for Republicans, because to cite just one example, a Republican-run EPA won't be able to loosen restrictions on oil drilling and coal plants as easily.

Every SCOTUS case is decided by itself. So if a Republican-run EPA tries to loosen restrictions on oil drilling and it comes before the Court, the conservative Justices will still rule in favor. That's the thing about politicization: It's less about doctrinal consistency and more about the outcome.

[Brittain33]

This is why Supreme Court Reform is needed more than ever. Let's hope we have a pro-democracy majority in Congress next year to make it a reality.

What kind of reform do you have in mind?

My ideal scenario is moving to 18-year terms appointed at 2-year intervals to avoid outcomes like we have now. If Republicans don't go with that--and I imagine they wouldn't want to concede the power they've acquired--then something like aligning the number of Supreme Court seats to match the number of circuits next year would provide a one-time correction if we had a federal government representative of the majority of the country.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The Chevron doctrine of deference to administrative agencies will likely become more limited.  In practice this will often mean more limited regulation, but also can mean stricter regulation, whichever is closer to the ordinary meaning of the law delegating the agency power to regulate. The burden of changing or creating regulation will fall more on Congress.

This sounds like something that could become a two-edged sword for Republicans, because to cite just one example, a Republican-run EPA won't be able to loosen restrictions on oil drilling and coal plants as easily.

Yes, just look at where the Chevron Doctrine gets it's name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.

[Zohranism is OUR future]

This is why Supreme Court Reform is needed more than ever. Let's hope we have a pro-democracy majority in Congress next year to make it a reality.

Silly Democrats, I will prevent any reforms!

You have no chance at winning, liberals.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is why Supreme Court Reform is needed more than ever. Let's hope we have a pro-democracy majority in Congress next year to make it a reality.

The number 1 reason why the GOP should control the senate is to stop you guys from packing the courts.

[Zohranism is OUR future]

This is why Supreme Court Reform is needed more than ever. Let's hope we have a pro-democracy majority in Congress next year to make it a reality.

The number 1 reason why the GOP should control the senate is to stop you guys from packing the courts.

Yes...the evil liberals are the ones ruining the court system.
I, Senator John James, will prevent any liberal court packing and will personally block any court changes whatsoever. I will pass a law extending the term of SCOTUS justices to 300 years after death. This way, we can ensure liberals are prevented from burning our constitution and murdering our children.

[Brittain33]

This is why Supreme Court Reform is needed more than ever. Let's hope we have a pro-democracy majority in Congress next year to make it a reality.

The number 1 reason why the GOP should control the senate is to stop you guys from packing the courts.

The GOP packed the courts to the hilt. The American people hope for an opportunity to reform and rebalance in the next term. And ultimately to move us past this zero-sum game fighting for courts which has Republicans supporting Trump and worthless senators just to keep control of courts.

[TJ in Oregon]

Should the Democrats add new seats to the Supreme Court, I fully expect Republicans to add twice as many the next time they take control. This process will likely repeat itself until it is expected and the Supreme Court essentially powerless.

[Benjamin Frank]

Should the Democrats add new seats to the Supreme Court, I fully expect Republicans to add twice as many the next time they take control. This process will likely repeat itself until it is expected and the Supreme Court essentially powerless.

If the Democratic agenda is popular with the public, it could be 40 years before the Republicans take control again.

In broad strokes, there was a liberal consensus from 1933-1980 and then a conservative consensus from 1981-2020.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is why Supreme Court Reform is needed more than ever. Let's hope we have a pro-democracy majority in Congress next year to make it a reality.

The number 1 reason why the GOP should control the senate is to stop you guys from packing the courts.

Yes...the evil liberals are the ones ruining the court system.
I, Senator John James, will prevent any liberal court packing and will personally block any court changes whatsoever. I will pass a law extending the term of SCOTUS justices to 300 years after death. This way, we can ensure liberals are prevented from burning our constitution and murdering our children.

Unironically yes it is the left who is ruining the courts

[Zohranism is OUR future]

Maybe term limits would be a better idea for SCOTUS justices.
10-20 years tops, instead of this lifetime appointment.
It makes sense considering how much life expectancy has changed and the state likely increase in the future.
Court Packing would be extremely unpopular and would set a very terrible precedent.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

Court-packing: stupid, stupider, stupidest.
Thank god Biden doesn't care for packing the court and Ds won't get the votes needed to do it even if Biden was on board.
Also: very sad to see that red avatars don't seem to know what court-packing actually is. What the GOP has done is a net negative for sure, but it's not court packing. This word doesn't mean what you think it means.

[lfromnj]

Maybe term limits would be a better idea for SCOTUS justices.
10-20 years tops, instead of this lifetime appointment.
It makes sense considering how much life expectancy has changed and the state likely increase in the future.
Court Packing would be extremely unpopular and would set a very terrible precedent.

John Marshall was appointed in 1801 and was Chief Justice for 34 years.

[R.P. McM]

Court-packing: stupid, stupider, stupidest.
Thank god Biden doesn't care for packing the court and Ds won't get the votes needed to do it even if Biden was on board.
Also: very sad to see that red avatars don't seem to know what court-packing actually is. What the GOP has done is a net negative for sure, but it's not court packing. This word doesn't mean what you think it means.

It's a distinction without a difference. Both approaches run roughshod over procedural norms, and both are perfectly legal. So why shouldn't Democrats use every tool at their disposal to undo a 6-3 activist GOP Court that would seek to entrench minority rule and make legislating obsolete? I think mitigating climate change, enacting universal healthcare, and creating a more equitable economic system is well worth angering a few Republicans.

[R.P. McM]

Should the Democrats add new seats to the Supreme Court, I fully expect Republicans to add twice as many the next time they take control. This process will likely repeat itself until it is expected and the Supreme Court essentially powerless.

Good. I want to see a Republican Party running Congress and the Presidency attempt to explain to its evangelical base why it's incapable of outlawing abortion or gay marriage. Or, conversely, attempt to explain to the majority of the public why the fraudulent moral framework of Jerry Jr., Scott DesJarlais, and Kim Davis must prevail nationwide.