I had the same reaction as you at first, but then I noticed the author he referred to was the guy that Os linked to which presumably he knew was a different guy. So I don’t think there was an intention to dox.
Read this post by Os that's public. How is it doxing if he posted his own work? https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/ussc-decisions.305529/page-37#post-14152579 Did a states lawyer for the people of California just wrongly assume something? I think so. Also I don't care what he does IRL. I'm not about to try and ruin his life or anything. I'm busy with my own. Go be a professor and teach your students your lovely D&D banter for income. It's not my tuition. I just legitimately wanted to read his real academic contributions and I gotta say his writing is good, but it really is more of the same that he shares on the D&D minus the trolling. The Complacent Class: The Self Defeating Quest for the American Dream is what I'm reading so far.
Whether you agree with the policy or not, it's absurd for the court to say "Trump can set immigration policy but his successor can't overrule it". That doesn't make a damn bit of legal sense.
I don't know what the right answer is but you can dam well bet we will keep hearing the phrase "Biden`s out of control border policy" from the gop, he hasn't had a policy yet and yet we still get the lies. Anyway, immigration is a hot topic and I don't think we are prepared for a mass exodus from the folks who are in Mexico wanting to come in. I want to be fair to those wanting to come but we have to be careful.....how many is to much, how do they gauge that, I have no clue, is it 1000 a day, how do they calculate how many we can take in........I want to understand but have no clue, all I ever hear is its out of control and no real context
For sure, but that's a separate debate than the issue at the court. Namely- could a President reverse his predecessor's immigration policy? If you take that option away...you basically unravel the entire executive branch and every law. SCOTUS isn't apolitical, but their decisions have serious consequences on how govt works.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-framers-believed-that-republic.html 2 hours ago "[T]he framers believed that a republic— a thing of the people—would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable 'ministers.'" by noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) Writes Neil Gorsuch, citing Federalist No. 11, concurring in yesterday's case, West Virginia v. EPA. He continues: From time to time, some have questioned that assessment.1That footnote goes to an attack on Woodrow Wilson (I've replaced the citiation with a hot link and added boldface): For example, Woodrow Wilson famously argued that “popular sovereignty” “embarrasse[d]” the Nation because it made it harder to achieve “executive expertness.” The Study of Administration. In Wilson’s eyes, the mass of the people were “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish.” He expressed even greater disdain for particular groups, defending “[t]he white men of the South” for “rid[ding] themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant [African-Americans].” He likewise denounced immigrants “from the south of Italy and men of the meaner sort out of Hungary and Poland,” who possessed “neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence.” To Wilson, our Republic “tr[ied] to do too much by vote.” Sometimes the Critical Race Theory comes from the right! That's at page 4 of his opinion. At page 16, attack the dissent, he brings back Woodrow Wilson: In places, the dissent seems to suggest that we should not be unduly “ ‘concerned’ ” with the Constitution’s assignment of the legislative power to Congress. Echoing Woodrow Wilson, the dissent seems to think “a modern Nation” cannot afford such sentiments. But recently, our dissenting colleagues acknowledged that the Constitution assigns “all legislative Powers” to Congress and “bar[s their] further delegation” [quoting Gundy v. United States]. To be sure, in that case we disagreed about the exact nature of the “nondelegation inquiry” courts must employ to vindicate the Constitution. But like Chief Justice Marshall, we all recognized that the Constitution does impose some limits on the delegation of legislative power. Back to the discussion on page 4: By vesting the law-making power in the people’s elected representatives, the Constitution sought to ensure “not only that all power [w]ould be derived from the people,” but also “that those [e]ntrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people.” [Citing Federalist No. 37, written by James Madison.] The Constitution, too, placed its trust not in the hands of “a few, but [in] a number of hands,” so that those who make our laws would better reflect the diversity of the people they represent and have an “immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people.” [Citing Federalist No. 52, written by James Madison.] Today, some might describe the Constitution as having designed the federal lawmaking process to capture the wisdom of the masses. See P. Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? 502–503 (2014). (That's my Amazon Associates link on Philip Hamburger's book. Don't buy the book that way unless you want to support this blog.) Gorsuch stresses democracy as a structural safeguard, intended by the framers to protect us from abuse by the elite, who would prefer to do what they, in their wisdom, think will be best for us. He nudges us to feel that those who argue for executive law-making — like Woodrow Wilson — regard the people as "selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish" — deplorables. Posted by Ann Althouse at 8:09 AM
pretty easy to ground truth this one at the link (Dr. A, et al., v. Hochul). Politico is 100% misleading here, which is unusual for Politico, ordinarily they do a good job. oh well. for what it's worth my wife dealt with two+ years of these kinds of religious appeals about mandatory covid vaccines for staff and students. These are exactly the kind of exemption requests that were made. I read a lot of them. https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/07/what-does-suggests-suggest-it-makes.html July 1, 2022 What does "suggests" suggest? It makes something sound untrue, but you haven't shown anything untrue. I'm trying to read — at Politico — "Clarence Thomas suggests Covid vaccines are developed using cells of ‘aborted children’/Cells obtained from elective abortions decades ago were used in testing during the Covid vaccine development process, a practice that is common in vaccine testing." Maybe there was an earlier draft of this article that made more sense, but the way it is now, what Clarence Thomas "suggests" happened is the same thing Politico tells us really happened. What's not true is that the vaccines contain cells from aborted fetuses or cells derived from cells from aborted fetuses, but Thomas didn't say that. He said that some litigants opposed to a vaccine mandate "object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children." You can read Thomas's whole opinion — dissenting from a denial of a grant of certiorari — here. He is joined by Alito and Gorsuch. Only 4 votes are needed to take the case. The issue is whether the mandate can be considered a "generally applicable" policy when it has some exceptions — medical exceptions. Posted by Ann Althouse at 10:24 AM on edit, here's the headline in case they further revise the article title
and now other sites have picked up on the story and are spreading the misleading headline Clarence Thomas Quotes False Vaccine Conspiracy Theory In Dissent No, the Covid-19 vaccines don't contain cells from aborted fetuses https://www.theroot.com/clarence-thomas-quotes-false-vaccine-conspiracy-theory-1849133541 excerpt: Until yesterday, it was hard to imagine how Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas could have made the Court’s term any worse. Thomas is considered the ideological godfather of an emboldened, far-right majority on the Court that in the past week alone weakened Miranda rights for people detained by cops, removed the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to actually protect the environment and obliterated the national right to an abortion for women. In that last instance, Thomas didn’t write the majority opinion but he did pen an inflammatory concurrence inviting challenges to the rights to same-sex marriage and contraception, but notably not interracial marriage, something that’s obviously very dear to his heart. Then Thomas hit us all with a “hold my beer”, squeezing a reference to the debunked conspiracy theory that Covid-19 vaccines are made of cells from aborted fetuses into his dissent in the Court’s decision to decline a challenge to New York’s vaccine mandate for medical workers. more at the link
Traveling and working, so I need to catch up, so apologies if this has been discussed. I sympathize with non-delegation, but it's not a doctrine - it's only a preference. This is a good debate subject and falls into the same category as the CDC eviction moratoriam and the OSHA vaccine/test mandate, though there is more nuance about this EPA case. Long story short, Congress has always delegated since the founding. From a text, history, and tradition standpoint, delegating is part of the job. In fact, there were debates in the first congress about post road expansion, basic map planning and roads planning, and the debate ended up with the side favoring delegation winning over the minority side that said Congress should control the details. Where to draw the line goes to one's theory of government, a choice made by SCOTUS not entirely dictated by the Constitution in a clear black/white manner.
I think the other half is where the "major questions" issue comes in, philosophically and legally. I know that's what the dissent is upset about, among other things. My understanding is that it's what distinguishes run-of-the-mill delegation that falls within the purview of statutorily-authorized delegation, and departures from that into the realm of addressing "major questions" of public policy--questions that go well beyond the ordinary day-to-day delegation of routine responsibilities. more on "major questions": The Supreme Court’s “Major Questions” Doctrine: Background and Recent Developments https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10745 relevant excerpt aimed at Congress: Considerations for Congress Even if the Supreme Court does not clarify the scope of the major questions doctrine in West Virginia v. EPA, the increasing frequency of legal arguments about this doctrine suggests that it could continue to be an emerging and important issue in administrative law. If the Supreme Court were to adopt the doctrine as some individual Justices have expressed it, then courts applying the doctrine could potentially determine that an agency lacks the ability to determine authoritatively a major question unless its underlying statutory authority clearly permits or requires it to do so. Therefore, if Congress wants an agency to have the flexibility to address potentially complex and difficult-to-foresee policy issues that courts might consider to be of “vast” economic and political significance, Congress could consider how to clearly specify that intention in the relevant underlying statute, as opposed to relying on vague or imprecise statutory language. Alternatively, if Congress wants to prevent an agency from administratively addressing certain major policy issues, it could consider how to clearly circumscribe the agency’s statutory authority. To date, the Court has not provided clear guidance on what can be considered a “major” question or how Congress might state its intent with respect to issues that it cannot now foresee, which could complicate the drafting of such statutes. Given the recent interest in applying the doctrine, however, it is possible that the Court will clarify its scope in a pending or future case. more at the link
Agreed. Based on history and evidence, where to draw the line isn't clear. So really, it's about philosophy. What should government be and how should it work? There's absolutely a separation of powers belief in design, but where to draw the line has always been blurry, and there is no clear line that says Congress cannot delegate this or that.
Politico corrected the misleading story today, but it got picked up by a lot of media outlets, so the damage pretty much is done
