General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJustice Alito just wrote the most terrifying sentence to appear in a Supreme Court opinion in years
Stephen Bannon is about to see his dreams come true.
On the surface, Gundy v. United States is a victory for a vibrant government and the democratic constitutional order thats prevailed in the United States for many decades. In it, a narrow majority of the court rejects an aggressive legal challenge that could render much of the executive branch of government unconstitutional.
Scratch just one inch below the surface, however, and Gundy is the harbinger of an anti-government revolution. Though the Supreme Court voted 5-3 to maintain the power of Congress to delegate the details of policymaking to executive branch agencies, Justice Samuel Alitos vote with the majority rests on the thinnest of reeds and he is quite explicit that he is eager to join the revolution in a future case.
The outcome in Gundy almost certainly hinges on the fact that the courts newest member, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, was days before his confirmation vote when Gundy was argued, so he sat this case out and denied his fellow conservatives the fifth vote they needed to light much of the federal government on fire. But he wont be absent in the next case, or the one after that, or the one after that.
The revolution is coming, and it is likely to take with it much of the regulatory structure that protects workers, patients, victims of discrimination, and the environment.
[link:https://thinkprogress.org/justice-alito-just-wrote-the-most-terrifying-sentence-to-appear-in-a-supreme-court-opinion-in-years-83a535d3ce58/|
THIS IS FRIGHTENING
Zoonart
(11,869 posts)Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The sentence is.... what?
cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)Ptah
(33,032 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)former9thward
(32,023 posts)Try again.
Ptah
(33,032 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Alito did not write what you wrote. Seems to me he was on the camp that Congress should be careful about giving authority to just one person.
I find it highly unlikely that he said that.
Response to jberryhill (Reply #3)
Rainbow Droid This message was self-deleted by its author.
Celerity
(43,408 posts)years, I would support that effort.
Alito, in other words, appears quite eager to join Gorsuchs revolution. He chose not to use this case as the vehicle for revolution because if a majority is not willing to do that, it would be freakish to single out the provision at issue here for special treatment. But it is overwhelmingly likely that the only reason there wasnt a majority in support of revolution is because Kavanaugh did not hear this case. When the next case arrives, Alito will almost certainly be on Gorsuchs team.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Celerity
(43,408 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)The precedent, as I understand it, is that the Court automatically sided with Congress when Congress chose to assign authority to a single person or group, typically because the Executive Branch is the branch that carries out Congress' instructions. So wholesale delegation of an authority by Congress has not raised eyebrows.
Reconsidering that could mean a lot of possible outcomes, from your alarming picture to one where the Court backs Congress more or directs Congress to hold on to authority that it is delegating by passing laws that define what it wants.
Celerity
(43,408 posts)I offered no commentary.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Celerity
(43,408 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)So there. Enough.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It's just clickbait by the author to get us to read his illuminations and ruminations on various things.
Farmer-Rick
(10,185 posts)controls over corporations, who do they think will be the most powerful entities in America? It won't be the Supreme Court. It won't be the federal gov't.
It will be the handful of capitalist kings, the Waltons, Zuckerberg, the Google kings and the Koch bros. Welcome your new feudal Lords.
Ptah
(33,032 posts)former9thward
(32,023 posts)Try again.
Ptah
(33,032 posts)former9thward
(32,023 posts)Ptah
(33,032 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Ptah
(33,032 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Duppers
(28,125 posts)"...this portentous sentence: If a majority of this Court were willing to reconsider the approach we have taken for the past 84 years, I would support that effort.
Essentially saying Bannon's wet dream is coming.
bdamomma
(63,870 posts)nt
OMGWTF
(3,959 posts)The Wizard
(12,545 posts)He's well read and book smart, but he really has to get out more. Totally clueless on the ramifications of his strange positions.
sarabelle
(453 posts)VOTE A DEMOCRAT IN FOR PRESIDENT.
Kaiserguy
(740 posts)we must hold the House and take the Senate and keep both for a long time to come!!!
Harker
(14,024 posts)on how a revisitation might be received should be rendered moot.
That's the literal form of 'prejudice.'
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)shanny
(6,709 posts)to executive branch agencies, with Barf Kavanaugh sitting this one out because the argument was days before he was confirmed.
And if he had already been confirmed, the vote could/would have been 5-4, with the same result.
Don't get me wrong: it is a big issue and one we should focus on. But can we dispense with the BS click-bait fear-mongering?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Apparently not.
Duppers
(28,125 posts)Thanks!
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Look to me what Alito was saying was that Congress need to be careful about what and when it delegates to the Executive Branch and pass laws to cover the issue delegated instead. He mentioned leaving decisions in the hands of one person.
His opinion seems consistent with his past one against Executive Actions by the Obama Administration. I would be more concerned about Roberts and Thomas, who seemed to have reversed their past tact.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)it's authority to the Executive Branch. Maybe I read it wrong, that that is how it seemed to me.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I don't want to read a history of what the author thinks about this or that. The title is about a "frightening" sentence written by Alito. You would think that the story would lead with that sentence.
I spent a couple of minutes reading the story, but when no frightening sentence (or any sentence) by Alito was forthcoming, I gave up. I think this might be a nothingburger.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)agreed with the delegation in this particular case, but was a little leery of Congress delegating when it can pass laws instead. Even Gorsuch in dissent, pointed out that Congress chose to leave the decisionmaking in the hands of one person.
So the decision says nothing about how a vote on Congress challenging Trump overstepping would come out. I did not see an opinion from Roberts, but his vote could mean that he agrees with more executive power or does not agree with it and thinks that Congress was wrong to delegate away that authority.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)not that I could find in a couple of minutes,anyway.
I don't want to read a history of a legal case. I wanted to read the "frightening sentence" by Alito, and then backtrack for any history I'd need to understand the sentence.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)I had the very distasteful honor of defending Samuel Alito. Hopefully I keep down the dinner that I just ate.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)It's rarely worth the trip to the article.
I guess an extra sentence is too much to ask for.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)delegating.
brush
(53,787 posts)donkeypoofed
(2,187 posts)They each had a vote and used it dumbly; now everyone will have to pay the price. Geez. That's scary.