Chris Geidner: Kagan is reading from her dissent. Here's a key part:

BREAKING: The Supreme Court overrules Chevron on a 6-3 ideological vote.

Roberts has the opinion overruling the 1984 case setting forth a standard in which courts give federal agencies deference to their reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws. The decision gives more power to the courts to strike down agency actions. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23p...

www.supremecourt.gov

Thomas and Gorsuch write concurring opinions. Kagan writes the dissent for the liberal justices.

Kagan is reading from her dissent. Here's a key part:

Roberts, overruling Chevron with incredible and unearned hubris: "Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."

I acknowledge that "unearned hubris" is a poor phrasing. That is either repetitive or creating an unintentional double negative in effect. Hubris. It's hubris. I am listening and learning. And, in the absence of sleep, will at least drink more caffeine.

Chris you are just fine. Don’t even apologize. You are the first account I go to for Scotus news. Going to subscribe today to support you!

Or as Kagan put it, hubris squared

This from someone who admitted he can't even do algebra.

Un earned Unjustified Unseemly Godawful

bsky.app/profile/jlaz...

The hubris is staggering.

Repetitive is emphasis. It works.

"unfathomable"?

Oh so the justices are experts in all things now? FUCKING HELL

Alito: Yes.

I've never wished violence on a judge before, but this bullshit makes me want to see Gorsuch and the other conservative SCOTUS judges get shoved into lockers.

Ask any mediocre attorney - they can become subject matter experts if provided a 50 page briefing book (illustrated) and a two hour tutorial with an expert provided by their client.

Ah… the doctrine of justice infallibility

ah yes, courts well known for such stunning insight as: - black people are property - it's okay if black people are forced into ghettoes as long as they have an equal sized blanket - sterilising people is great if i think they're stupid -

I'm confused. Which of those does the only person whose opinion matters in this country (Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts) disagree with?

Yeah, because, you know, people who have familiarity with the actual technical workings of, let's say, environmental chemistry and whatnot, don't have as much understanding of how chemicals affect the environment as say, you know, a supreme court justice? I cannot believe the gall of these people

So, the Court isn't there to react to resolve disputes, it is there to make the decisions themselves. Why even fucking have elections then,if the High Clerics get to adjudicate All Things Under His Sun?

I guess we at least get to pick the person who picks the "Illuminated Ones"... Except for when a candidate fails the popular vote yet still wins which to fair does happen rather often.

Between this and Alito claiming he knows when an amniotic sac rupture would lead to sepsis? The audacity.

King John of the Bench

I think we might need a new Magna Carta…

Or a French Revolution.

The French have their own problems rn. We need an American one.

"the concept of ambiguity has always evaded meaningful definition" is an incredible bit, rejecting the notion of ambiguity for being too ambiguous

This has got to be the worst Court ever, right? Is there any argument?

Civil war era one was pretty bad, but that bar isn't just low it's underground

Taney or the Plessy court is unambiguously worse, but definitely since the New Deal era at least

ah yes experts do not have expertise, the only thing that matters is *power*

JFC. This is nuts. I teach h.s. civics. My intro. to the bureaucracy is this hypothetical: suppose you want to be sure that when you take an aspirin it doesn't kill you. You have two choices as to who will test it to make sure it's safe. One is me, who has spent my entire adult life (1/ )

studying, participating in, and teaching about politics, including while I practiced law. The other is the A.P. Chemistry teacher. (I then joke that all I remember from h.s. chem. was something about the number of avocadoes.) Even the 15, 16 year olds get it. Maybe SCOTUS should talk to them. (2/2)

It's 6 or 23 avocadoes, for future reference.

So THAT'S why my guac never seems to come out right! Thank you.

Senate judiciary should flat out summon this SOB to appear, explain himself, and submit to questioning. We’ve long ago moved from consent to acquiescence. Next stop: rebellion.

Citizens United showed Roberts had no understanding of Political Science and US History. The Chevron decision shows he overturns science and economics.

The Court knew what it was doing with Citizens United. It was elevating a bad faith argument and thereby legalizing 99% of actual bribery.

He pretended he didn't understand poli sci and history to achieve his desired political outcome.

Because of course federal judges are trained biologists, epidemiologists, etc. etc., right? Right?

What the ever loving fucking hell is this bullshit

Courts do.

I have a crazy idea of how the administration should respond to this decision that will probably appall the lawyers and constitutional scholars. Ignore it. Continue to issue and enforce regulations. If someone complains, tell them to fuck off. Why should I clearly corrupt Court get the final word?

I'm not a lawyer, but even I can tell that's preposterous.

Good god. I'm not a lawyer and even I know that's a fucked up thing for a Justice to say.

yeah, I saw that. just bizarre anonymous reply guy type statement

And the Roberts Court method of resolving statutory ambiguities is chiefly hiding behind standing and laking the lower courts do the hard work. Beautiful.

Or throwing it to Congress, who they know full well won't do a thing.

Right. Beer Kavanaugh clucking and wondering how Congress failed to predict how he would nit-pick years in the future.

Has he met any lawyers? Or judges? Or litigated at all?

He has to protect his wife sources of "gratuities". Here : accountable.us/chief-justic...

Chief Justice Roberts’ Wife Made Millions From Elite Law Firms - Accountable USaccountable.us Today, new whistleblower documents revealed that Jane Roberts, who is married to Chief Justice John Roberts, made $10.3 million in commissions from elite law firms. At least one firm argued a case bef...

These issues are very easy to decide. You just look to see who’s offering the biggest gratuities.

Post