I think what I took away from this discussion, as much as I agreed with all of it, remains what I’ve been taking away from much of what has been happening in Republican Party circles for some time now. Indeed the increasing and combining Republican reaction to Brown v Board, Roe v Wade, Engel v Vitale, and later, Obergefell v Hodges has …
I think what I took away from this discussion, as much as I agreed with all of it, remains what I’ve been taking away from much of what has been happening in Republican Party circles for some time now. Indeed the increasing and combining Republican reaction to Brown v Board, Roe v Wade, Engel v Vitale, and later, Obergefell v Hodges has been pretty clear, and particularly in regard to Leonard Leo and the Heritage Foundation in particular. I’m not sure why Ms Charen and Ms Chavez should have been felt blindsided by the Supreme Court’s recent work. The Court’s current makeup has been a work in progress for decades.
We are surprised because this decision by the court is diametrically opposite the guiding principles of conservative legal philosophy. Last week, when the court threw out Chevron deference, which reins in the discretion of regulatory agencies, that was perfectly in line with conservative legal doctrine. This decision was the exact opposite - granting MORE discretion to the executive branch.
Four of the justices, including Roberts, have a background working for the executive branch. That gives them a different perspective, favoring the executive branch, which does not come from abstract conservative philosophy but from personal experience.
I guess it rather depends on what kind of conservative one is. They seem always in favor of more freedoms and fewer restrictions. That certainly seems in line with what the Court just gave the President.
As to the Chevron decision, it certainly benefits one group - litigators.
Indeed. For folks to act surprised is . . . well, surprising. This is the culmination of at least 40 years' effort. Judicial takeover achieves the goals that voting never could have. 🔹
I think what I took away from this discussion, as much as I agreed with all of it, remains what I’ve been taking away from much of what has been happening in Republican Party circles for some time now. Indeed the increasing and combining Republican reaction to Brown v Board, Roe v Wade, Engel v Vitale, and later, Obergefell v Hodges has been pretty clear, and particularly in regard to Leonard Leo and the Heritage Foundation in particular. I’m not sure why Ms Charen and Ms Chavez should have been felt blindsided by the Supreme Court’s recent work. The Court’s current makeup has been a work in progress for decades.
We are surprised because this decision by the court is diametrically opposite the guiding principles of conservative legal philosophy. Last week, when the court threw out Chevron deference, which reins in the discretion of regulatory agencies, that was perfectly in line with conservative legal doctrine. This decision was the exact opposite - granting MORE discretion to the executive branch.
Four of the justices, including Roberts, have a background working for the executive branch. That gives them a different perspective, favoring the executive branch, which does not come from abstract conservative philosophy but from personal experience.
I guess it rather depends on what kind of conservative one is. They seem always in favor of more freedoms and fewer restrictions. That certainly seems in line with what the Court just gave the President.
As to the Chevron decision, it certainly benefits one group - litigators.
Indeed. For folks to act surprised is . . . well, surprising. This is the culmination of at least 40 years' effort. Judicial takeover achieves the goals that voting never could have. 🔹