SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term
SnowLabrador:
Abolish the Supreme Court.
Vosem:
More interestingly, this almost seems to be a ruling about how to write legislation: the argument of the majority is that when the wording is unclear it should be interpreted to minimize federal power, or intrusion onto the rights of property owners (the latter of which is longstanding practice), and while 'adjacent' has some meaning beyond 'adjoining', that meaning is vague, and therefore in practice any particular wetland which is not adjoining can't be said to be adjacent. (There is a complicated argument that the exact wording used in the law implies that 'adjacent wetlands' are meant to already be included in 'waters of the United States', but this is generally contrary to administrative practice and I find the prominence given this argument odd, as if it were necessary for coalition-forming.)
Quote from: Samuel Alito
Second, the EPA’s interpretation gives rise to serious vagueness concerns in light of the CWA’s criminal penalties. Due process requires Congress to define penal statutes “‘with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited’” and “‘in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’” McDonnell v. United States, 579 U. S. 550, 576 (2016) (quoting Skilling v. United States, 561 U. S. 358, 402–403 (2010)). Yet the meaning of “waters of the United States” under the EPA’s interpretation remains “hopelessly indeterminate.” Sackett, 566 U. S., at 133 (ALITO, J., concurring); accord, Hawkes Co., 578 U. S., at 602 (opinion of Kennedy, J.).
The EPA contends that the only thing preventing it from interpreting “waters of the United States” to “conceivably cover literally every body of water in the country” is the significant-nexus test...
This is kind of obviously the meat of the decision and the reason that the majority chose to enact it.
Quote from: Buffalo Mayor Young Kim on May 25, 2023, 01:53:51 PM
Today in a 5-4 the ‘Orginalsits’ and ‘Textualists’ of the Supreme Court have decided that the plain text word adjacent, explicitly inserted into the statue to clarify the standard was ‘adjacent’ and no say ‘adjoining’ actually means ‘adjoining’.
I think the decision has more to do with the unacceptable vagueness of the 'adjacent' standard rather than a dispute about its meaning; five Justices chose to strike a single word under the Due Process Clause rather than take the law as written. I agree that Alito's opinion here tries to act as though it were a narrower decision than that and merely glances at due process, but the outcome makes much more sense as a due process case than as being about statutory interpretation.
Kavanaugh argues that the Court should've adopted the usual interpretation of 'adjacent' that's been used since the 1970s, but (...while I have not heard the oral argument, so I'm speculating), it seems judging by Alito's opinion like the EPA asked for significantly more here by arguing for Kennedy's significant-nexus test (which Kavanaugh himself would've narrowed), and probably thereby lost the case by asking for too much.
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better:
Quote from: Vosem on May 25, 2023, 09:59:36 AM
Quote from: Ferguson97 on May 25, 2023, 09:44:26 AM
Quote from: politicallefty on May 21, 2023, 12:57:31 AM
December has nine cases that include 303 Creative and Moore v. Harper. Assuming the latter isn't dismissed as moot, each Justice should be writing once. Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have yet to write a majority opinion for that sitting.
So dumb question, what happens if a justice just always dissents from the majority? They just don't get an opportunity to write for the majority?
Yeah, that's what would happen (and I think historically this happened some terms to ultra-right-wing judge James McReynolds, who was on the Court from 1914-1941)
Why did Wilson nominate such a type?
John Dule:
Quote from: These knuckles break before they bleed on May 25, 2023, 03:21:11 PM
Quote from: Vosem on May 25, 2023, 09:59:36 AM
Quote from: Ferguson97 on May 25, 2023, 09:44:26 AM
Quote from: politicallefty on May 21, 2023, 12:57:31 AM
December has nine cases that include 303 Creative and Moore v. Harper. Assuming the latter isn't dismissed as moot, each Justice should be writing once. Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have yet to write a majority opinion for that sitting.
So dumb question, what happens if a justice just always dissents from the majority? They just don't get an opportunity to write for the majority?
Yeah, that's what would happen (and I think historically this happened some terms to ultra-right-wing judge James McReynolds, who was on the Court from 1914-1941)
Why did Wilson nominate such a type?
Shared racism.
Donerail:
Quote from: These knuckles break before they bleed on May 25, 2023, 03:21:11 PM
Quote from: Vosem on May 25, 2023, 09:59:36 AM
Quote from: Ferguson97 on May 25, 2023, 09:44:26 AM
Quote from: politicallefty on May 21, 2023, 12:57:31 AM
December has nine cases that include 303 Creative and Moore v. Harper. Assuming the latter isn't dismissed as moot, each Justice should be writing once. Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have yet to write a majority opinion for that sitting.
So dumb question, what happens if a justice just always dissents from the majority? They just don't get an opportunity to write for the majority?
Yeah, that's what would happen (and I think historically this happened some terms to ultra-right-wing judge James McReynolds, who was on the Court from 1914-1941)
Why did Wilson nominate such a type?
McReynolds was extremely unpleasant on an interpersonal basis and appointing him to the Supreme Court — a lifetime role traditionally somewhat removed from day-to-day political life — meant that he would not be able to serve in Wilson's administration, be involved in Democratic Party politics, or otherwise interact with Wilson
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page