Civics classes

[jp1]

Didn’t Marbury v. Madison establish judicial review?

For constitutionality, yes. But that wasn’t the issue at question here.

[LDAHL]

They ruled that executive agencies, in this case the EPA, can’t create regulations for significant new activities without new enabling legislation. The opinion referred to something called the “major questions doctrine”.

[ApatheticNoMore]

The major questions doctrine was made up. Apparently noone referred to it except recently. It was entirely made up.

[jp1]

They ruled that executive agencies, in this case the EPA, can’t create regulations for significant new activities without new enabling legislation. The opinion referred to something called the “major questions doctrine”.

And that comes back to my original question. Where in the constitution is this "major questions doctrine" included? Nowhere. For supposed "originalist textualists" these justices sure do play fast and loose with the actual constitution. It's almost like they are, you know, just a bunch of effing partisan hacks who are making shit up to fit their desired outcomes.

[LDAHL]

The major questions doctrine was made up. Apparently noone referred to it except recently. It was entirely made up.

It originated in the nineties. The Court said Congress must speak clearly when granting agencies powers of great economic or political significance. I see it as a reasonable safeguard against bureaucratic mission creep.

[LDAHL]

And that comes back to my original question. Where in the constitution is this "major questions doctrine" included? Nowhere. For supposed "originalist textualists" these justices sure do play fast and loose with the actual constitution. It's almost like they are, you know, just a bunch of effing partisan hacks who are making shit up to fit their desired outcomes.

I don’t think it’s inconsistent with originalism to say the executive branch can’t grant itself powers in major new areas without authorization by Congress. I’ve heard it referred to as the “new wine in old bottles” argument.

[iris lilies]

It originated in the nineties. The Court said Congress must speak clearly when granting agencies powers of great economic or political significance. I see it as a reasonable safeguard against bureaucratic mission creep.

I often wonder what controls the executive office and those executive orders, and those actions of governmental departments. I guess it’s not really in black-and-white. Each president gets executive order happy.

[jp1]

I don’t think it’s inconsistent with originalism to say the executive branch can’t grant itself powers in major new areas without authorization by Congress. I’ve heard it referred to as the “new wine in old bottles” argument.

But, again, there are constitutional remedies for executive branch overreach during the implementation of laws. None of those involve the judicial branch. For the judicial branch to assert that they can pick and choose whether the executive branch has overstepped is a terrible idea considering that if the judicial branch oversteps and makes an extreme determination that something was overreach there is NO recourse in any way. Having the power of ‘the final say’ as the judicial branch does should mean that they are extremely cautious in utilizing that power. The right wing thugs on the court currently have shown an appalling lack of concern about this. We’re headed down a very bad path if the rule of law is subject to random overturn based on the political whims of a few hacks on the Supreme Court.

[Alan]

For the judicial branch to assert that they can pick and choose whether the executive branch has overstepped is a terrible idea considering that if the judicial branch oversteps and makes an extreme determination that something was overreach there is NO recourse in any way.

That's not true. In both of the cases which seem to have gotten under your skin lately Congress can make things right for you if they only will.

The right wing thugs on the court currently have shown an appalling lack of concern about this. We’re headed down a very bad path if the rule of law is subject to random overturn based on the political whims of a few hacks on the Supreme Court.

I think we're actually going down a very good path if the Supreme Court stops giving rights through the Judicial Branch and forces the Legislative Branch to do its job.

To stay on your topic of 'civics classes' I think one of the most important points to remember is that each of the three branches of government are designed to provide checks & balances on the others. The executive branch does not make laws, Congress makes laws and the Supreme Court checks them both to ensure that constitutional principles are not violated. It all works well until people start thinking they're living in a pure democracy and limits on power only apply to others.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't at all think we are living in a democracy, I mean occasionally some vote or other might slightly influence something like a state level proposition for instance, but that doesn't mean I think we live in a democracy overall.

But what to call it? Minority rule works - minority domination is far more accurate in describing the spirit of it. Theocracy works (a weird doomday cult type of theocracy it may be too) but not everything is about a small portion of the populations religious beliefs being imposed on everyone, but that's part of it. Plutocracy definitely is accurate - but a few of these rulings aren't about that, like how many plutocrats care about abortion. Kakistocracy might work. Corruption works. Non-representative non-democracy works maybe best of all.