2024's Most Important Supreme Court Decisions
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лип 2024
- Mr. Beat breaks down what he feels are the most important Supreme Court decisions announced in 2024.
Full list of the 62 decisions of this term:
www.oyez.org/cases/2023
Donald Trump v. United States
www.scotusblog.com/case-files...
Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo
www.scotusblog.com/case-files...
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
www.scotusblog.com/case-files...
Fischer v. United States
www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/ju...
Rahimi v. United States
www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/su...
Murthy v. Missouri
www.scotusblog.com/case-files...
Garland v. Cargill
www.scotusblog.com/case-files...
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
www.scotusblog.com/case-files...
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
www.scotusblog.com/case-files...
Trump v. Anderson
www.scotusblog.com/case-files...
Related reading:
www.politico.com/news/2024/07...
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...
#scotus #supremecourt #politics
Want to create live streams like this? Check out StreamYard: streamyard.com/pal/d/52723408...
40:00-47:00 kind of sums up a lot if you don't want to watch the whole thing.
I just saw this comment at this time stamp 41:55 😂
Thank you, but I guess I ate the whole banana, peel and all
Dope, thanks for doing this!
Thank you kind sir
I’m commenting early , but I hope you touch on the uk sovereign immunity. From what I understand the president now quite literally shares the same immunity as the king of England.
You're not qualified to talk law. Accepting bribes is against the law for officials, frivolous accusation.
I love how he gives the date like hes a hostage
😂
lol cannot unhear
1:57:24 The same thing happened to me. Growing up, I was libertarian-very fiscally conservative, anti-big government, and socially liberal. But as my brain finished developing, around the age of 25 or so, I began to realize how wonky much of that ideology would be in application; Big Business would just fill the power-vacuum left by Big Govt, which would likely result in worse outcomes.
I still have libertarian instincts, but I'm now the furthest left I've ever been while in my mid-40s.
always appreciate seeing this change and people being able to voice it. props to you. I don't think libertarians mean any harm, but I do think they are oftentimes people who have never experienced the results of their ideas or relied much on the systems the government provides. The idea of private libraries is wild to me, let alone completely privatized healthcare or completely privatized charity/homeless services/prison structures/law systems. I don't understand how anyone can experience those things and think getting more private interests in them would make them better (as opposed to less).
I’ve had the opposite journey. I’m curious how you came to that realization. Aren’t you making an assumption?
Fundamentally speaking the libertarian standpoint ultimately turns into a dystopia of money makes right.
@@vaughnmead2734
Reducing government would create a power vacuum, allowing big businesses to fill the void and gain excessive power, leading to negative outcomes-less freedom and liberty-for individuals and society. This isn't just an assumption; it's based on observing the effects of deregulation and reduced governmental oversight in various sectors, which often result in increased corporate power at the expense of the public good.
If the intended outcome is more freedom and liberty, US-style libertarianism will not facilitate that outcome.
@@vaughnmead2734 I do want to say - there is a thing called "libertarian socialism". What's funny is - different people have different ideas of "freedom". I'm of the mindset that true freedom is not tying the ability to live with a necessity to work. Understanding that people have the "freedom" to live a healthy and fulfilling life, and recognizing that companies gatekeeping things like medicine, food, housing, etc actually fundamentally limits that freedom for a majority of the people around them.
We don't have to go as far as "no one needs to ever work again" to recognize that, though. People will still want to work to feel fulfilled, to have things outside of necessities, and because those jobs will still need doing at the end of the day. But limiting your idea of freedom to "companies should be able to do whatever they want" hurts the freedom of anyone who relies on the things those companies create, or the workers who rely on that company for a livelihood. Especially when companies rely more on investments and stockholders than they do customers and actual ethical business practices.
Libertarianism in the US relies too much on a "free market" that doesn't actually exist. The market isn't free. Companies buy their competitors out with investments all the time. They undercut competitions using startup cash all the time. That's just the way capitalism develops - for better or for worse.
As a lawyer, I am disheartened by SCOTUS just inventing new law now. It feels like the ideas don't control the case outcomes, but rather the party affiliation does in a very transparent way
@@benellison5668 at least in the good old days they would twist the meaning of laws into a pretzel to justify their terrible rulings
It's been like that since atleast FDR maybe longer
Only they vote for what they interpret. Right wing justices disagree plenty of the time.
This is a result of congresses incapability to legislate, its not the supreme courts fault, they are forced to make these decisions.
@@mattguye66 no one forced them to give the president unprecedented king-like immunity
Citizen’s United was and still is massively devastating.
Oh don't get me wrong. I think it sucked.
RFK Jr speaks of this and has promised if elected to launch a drive across the states to pass a constitutional amendment to overrule Citizens United.
Absolutely. I'd call it the most indirectly influential decision this century so far. The fate of the US election process has been fundamentally changed in the favor of the upper class
@@iammrbeat 👍🏼
@@sherrykumar2883 RFK Jr shouldn’t speak, imo, but if he does, we shouldn’t listen to his jargon, also imo.
"No citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding"
Isn't this in direct contradiction to the recent ruling?
"Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions on subjects within his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority."
The courts cannot examine the president's official actions, which means that official acts cannot be used as evidence. I guess they could say that the courts are simply not allowed to call upon him in that case and so when they do call upon him he must comply, still seems a bit misleading to me.
American democracy, if that's indeed what we want to call it, is forever changed in a major way.
This seems like a video important enough to shorten to a digestible 12 minutes rather than 120 minutes.
There’s plenty of others that do this.
i’m sure he’s gonna make another snappy video that describes it more concisely, this specifically was a livestream for nuance.
I don’t see a problem with long form. Especially with so much nuance involved. And it’s a livestream so..
Not only does the president have too much power, but too much responsibility.
Nobody can avoid being biased. Bias is hardwired into our brains as an evolutionary tool of survival. What we should do, and what judges are supposed to be trained to do, is to identify their biases and avoid letting them affect your work.
And in general they are successful. I'm always disappointed when people trash decisions they disagree with. These are serious jurists, doing their best.
@@lindencamelback2305 Yep, they are working hard for their billionaire benefactors.
Yes! One of the primary reasons I LOVE Mr. Beat is that he acknowledges his biases. We all have them. But transparency matters. And trying to remain as impartial as possible, understanding we are all in one country.
What a year
What a decade
And we're not even half way through.
1:55:45 I live in DC. I don’t work for the government, but it is my home. I know how Trump felt about us, and I remember how his supporters felt emboldened to treat us like dirt. It may be easy for some to forget that he had violent criminal organizations willing to help him with a coup, but we can’t.
And I understand. His thugs weren’t on your streets beating & threatening locals. But please remember that those elements will be reenergized by a Trump victory, and they will have few (if any) boundaries placed upon them.
"Violent criminal organizations" ... what violence did these organizations commit to help Trump try to complete the "coup" ?
@@drwalka10 They Organized a break into the Us capitol in an attempt to capture and destroy the documentation of the electoral votes submitted to the congress, and attempted to kill elected officials to prevent them from during their constitutionally required duties
Thanks Mr. Beat for this great summary and explainer. I agree that ACB turns out to be very smart and not as partisan as the worst two. One great (but less-covered) decision this term was the upholding of the Indian Child Welfare Act in a case that was a Trojan horse for undermining the sovereignty of all US tribes. Gorsuch turns out to be a staunch ally for Native sovereignty, and he actually knows his Indian Law and the history behind it.
I like that Barrett is a free thinker. I still disagree with her most of the time but I have noticed that most of the time she doesn’t join an opinion she writes her own. The case I thought was interesting Fischer v United States. That case said many of the January 6th defendants were miss charged. She dissented along with Kagan and Sotomayor.
I didn't realize that your supreme court briefs videos don't do as well. I think it is easily my favorite series of yours.
Could we get a rundown on Beat v. Supreme Court?
Supreme Court better get its act together or we are going to add members.
@@iammrbeat Love it
As to Chevron and Congress, the decision is going to make it WAY harder to actually create a policy because it has to be exact. Writing a more ambiguous law allows compromise
not true ... the judicial branch can still get input from specific agencies
@@drwalka10input means nothing. Input means we will let you speak but don’t plan on and probably won’t actually listen to you.
@drwalka10 1 I meant Congress 2. It's going to be really annoying for Congresspeople to decide on how many parts per million of lead we can have in water. You now HAVE to do this for each chemical and do a new law for any new ones that pop up 3. Each Congressperson is going to need experts to explain these things to every person.
You haven't shrunk the government, you've dramatically increased it
You clearly don't even know what Chevron difference was about. The only thing it covered was ambiguity of the law and all it did was give more weight to the bureaucrats when a lawsuit is filed. Anybody who claims things like now the EPA can't enforce the clean water act is a moron.
Instead of repeating useless ideologues online, read the actual ruling.
@@trunkage I think this is quite reminiscent of the continental law system, but yeah it will add paperwork
A longtime follower, although some of my opinions differ from yours, you are enjoyable to watch 🥰 Politics tend to divide people but I find it important to listen to my fellow Americans opinions. There are many other topics I agree with you on but no matter the topic, you maintain a friendly discussion. 🥰
I would...frankly...be terrified if you had the exact opinions as me.
@@iammrbeat 🤣 fair enough
I'm not American, and I'm appaled by how the US Supreme Court has turned in recent years. It has become probably too powerful, and certainly way too partisan/politicized. Justices can't help but be politically biased, as everyone is, but not everyone holds that much power, without the fear of any repercussions. The fact that they are more and more nominated on political grounds AND the fact that they are nominated for life (?!?), combined, can have devastating consequences, and seems utterly absurd to me... It really needs to be fixed.
In practice Chevron allowed the executive branch of government to subvert the legislative branch by making laws. Making laws is delegated to the legislative only in article one of the constitution. This ruling in practice is unconstitutional. I would totally support the original ruling if it was more limited in the power the executive gets.
100 % agree
I don't understand the obession with RBG and portraying her in a positive light...
She is largely the big reason the SCOTUS is 6-3 in most cases.... Obama suggested she step down after her health was failing when they had the senate seats and didn't... this is how we got here.
She also disappointingly cited the socalled "doctrine of discovery" as a legal justification. Greatly disappointing many a Native American.
Egos. People need to swallow their pride. It's like Bilbo not wanting to give up the ring.
Ah yes, yet another person suggesting that one Democrat not stepping down is the reason that the Supreme Court is corrupt as hell. You know what else would have prevented a 6-3 court? Impeaching McConnell the moment he blocked Obama from adding a new justice. Abolishing the electoral college prior to 2016. Arresting Thomas decades ago. But no, let's blame RBG for the actions of Republicans.
@@iammrbeatRBG believed Roe v Wade was decided incorrectly. So the current SCOTUS went along with what she believed
@@donkraemer50 Thats true but lets be real if she was still alive and on the court she would've voted against the overturning. Dem judges never cross party lines on potentially controversial rulings, like some Rep judges do (see every ruling for the past 20 years)
Funny. We dont need a test for immunity for other government officials, when you can't get anything, but an injunction
Wow, I completely agree with your take that the presidency is outdated and should be replaced by something like a council that is more than one person. I've thought this for some time, and I'm so glad to see you mention it, because I've never seen anyone mention this as an option that we should be talking about.
These agencies do have enforcement mechanisms. Even the EPA has men with guns. Of course not to mention the ATF.
Citizens United is absolutely as bad if not worse than was predicted!
Can you make a video explaining how expanding the supreme court could work/its history? Great vid as always
Awesome stream! Thank you very much.
Thanks for watching!
This stream is educating and refreshing to here at the same time. It's very reasuring to hear this stream.
Educating to anyone not paying attention ... because of that they should continue to not pay attention
"Thank you Mr. Beat!!" we all say in unison
Like you, I am always the one who dies on the SCOTUS hill. They're different than the others, I would say. This is a legal body and not a political one, I would say. Politically speaking, I have never felt like a bigger idiot. They've disgraced the positions they hold and the document they claim to interpret.
A one person executive is fundamental the founding. The Federalist Papers are convincing in arguing against multiple executives. I'm not sure that would even be a good idea. I agree that the President has too much power tho. I appreciate that you think outside the box.
I don't think people can sugarcoat this ruling. The opinion is crystal clear while being vague in all the worst ways. I think the sensationalists don't have to alter any facts to sensationalize and I don't believe they are. There are absolutely official means to assassinating your rival that would reasonably escape persecution under this fabricated ruling.
We need to expand the court to like 15-19 people. Nine people is far too prone to infiltration, corruption, and impartiality. The more we add, the more likely that there will be enough cooler heads to avoid this kind of chaos.
Cry harder
@@drwalka10 This isn't team sports.
@@iammrbeat Amen
If in the view of the Dems and left-leaning populous think the SCOTUS ruling enables politcal assassinations then why doesn't the Biden administration do it right now to Trump? Dems claim he will end democracy and is authoritarianism incarnate. What greater justification for a political rival assassination could there be than saving the country from electing 'facism'? Except they won't, because they know that viewpoint is nothing but sensationalist nonsense.
And if Dems want to expand the court then they need to do so when they already have the majority of the judges being Dem-leaning. Otherwise expanding it will make the SCOTUS more political than it already is and such an action would be seen as politcal manipulation and an attempt to circumvent the existing SCOTUS politcal makeup even if the action is taken to reduce corruption and partisanship.
The max Dems could get away without setting a dangerous precedent would be from 9 to 11, so that they would still be in the minority currently just less severly and with the serious possiblity that Roberts or ACB vote with the Dem judges. If they expand it beyond that to give themselves the majority of judges on the court then expect one of the first acts of a new presidency to be packing the SCOTUS in the new president's favour.
By flexin', you mean mooning everyone, right? It genuinely makes me wonder if our checks and balances are broken now. I don't like alarmist politics, but things are getting pretty real.
That and rule of law. Two of the most fundamental aspects of this country have been destroyed, and people are acting like nothing happened.
Especially when one of them is blatantly corrupt, having gotten many corpo-sponsored vacations.
@@RemnantCult Later decisions made can strike down laws or decisions. If we don’t give the Supreme Court any decision-making power out of fear of “mooning everyone”, then there’s no point in having it at all. And if you’re seeing the 3 branches of government refuse to make decisions that limit each other’s power, then congratulations, you have discovered why many people having been fighting for small government.
i think the most shocking thing about this video is that Mr Beat went to Ozzfest?? 🤘🏻🔥
how is that shocking he's a musician? 😝
Often its not a question of what is illegal, its a question of, does this qualify as breaking the law under how the law is written ?
what does "is" mean?
(a clinton throwback)
A video on judical philosophy would be great. IMO you can't understand the current court with understanding originalism's purpose, history, and rise. It's a slight quagmire but judicial philosophy is critical to understanding scotus.
the left wouldn't dare have these conversations unprovoked
At least a few court members don't actually follow any judicial philosophy; Thomas and Alito both vote on a philosophy of "whatever makes our friends richer and more powerful", very openly and proudly. Judicial philosophy would be interesting, but don't help you understand any of this year's decisions.
1:30 - Citizen’s United is why we're in the situation we're in now...
Correct!
BINGO!!!
Good video. The rulings that you disagreed with, is it because you dislike the effects of the decision or disagree with the reasoning given to support the decision?
A 2 hr livestream from mr beat is a must watch.
If we want a more functional Congress, we don't need to hand a disfunctional one more responsibility. We need to change the way they are composed to make them functional. Proportional Representation is the answer - instead of gerrymandered "safe" districts we would have larger districts where party elected reps are based on proportional votes. Less extreme candidates, more need for reps to actually appeal to their voter base, and more freedom for outsider parties to achieve visibility and actually propose changes.
I know you are trying to look on the optimistic side XD so this is less a critique than my own thoughts. I just think if they did want to make Congress functional, they are doing it in the worst way possible.
You mentioned possibly replacing the presidency with a council. Any thoughts on something like the Mimbari Grey Council? Each caste - religious, warrior, and worker - selects three council members, for a total of nine. Of course that would require having a caste system… so maybe that’s not so good a model. :)
Thomas is the worst in my books. Not just the worst but he is a criminal.
Left will show their contempt for blacks / minorities who they disagree with ... they see will as a traitor ... they feel entitled to have every minorities support
the worst like u have comprehension background / understanding of all or even most justices in American history .
shushhhhhhhhhhhh
@@drwalka10 I served my nation without having to taking money, trips, or favors. I retired from y the Military as a honorable man. I made sure the military budget was balance so I didn't waste tax-payers money. I made sure any waste or fraud was stop. I was impartial from my beliefs and the oath I took to defend my nation. Unlike, Thomas and other politicians never took advantage of my position. I know more about honor than Thomas.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
@@3x157thomas took vacations from his friend, who is conservative and has no pending or previous cases at any court in the U.S, his name is Harlan Crow. i don’t see an issue with that. Thomas is a conservative justice, long before he took those vacations, and he rules that way. In fact, the Supreme court issued an ethics notice targeting sotomayor for her shady book deals, rather than targeting Thomas
Get the book!! Great book
The Death Grips mention blew my mind. I would proudly proclaim Hustle Bones as the new National Anthem.
Time stamp?
Impeach Clarence nowwwww
Great video.
Thank you so much!
Loper Bright was an amazing decision. Chevron totally ignored the text of the APA and the separation of powers
Great video. Would love if you can make one of your typical 15-30 minutes videos with edit summing this up. I would love to show my loved ones who are not as engaged and need something shorter format / more digestible.
I think I've seen all your supreme court briefs and look forward to more. Also, love how you say *Supreme Court Briefs* don't stop lol
I love the super chats but i feel like they disrupt the pacing of the streams, I feel like doing less of them and being ok with missing some would make the video flow a lot better
Good feedback. I will keep this in mind for future streams.
@@iammrbeat maybe a dedicated stream for reading super chats?
About the Colorado case on ballot access, what you and the Supreme Court basically advocate is a complete redaction of section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Funny how Gorsuch forgot that when he was on the Court of Appeals, he thought it entirely appropriate for courts to vindicate and confirm the rights of states to govern ballot access issues. He was being intellectually dishonest in Anderson.
You mention Patterns. My College History Professor has had me looking for and expecting this year. He called it the Imperial Presidency: 1924(Teapot Dome), 1974(Watergate) and 2024 (Is it the Trump immunity Ruling??)
How do I watch Mr best live?
there was an UA-cam annoucement that shouldve showed up in your feed
The counsel is the cabinet Mr beat come on man
I really appreciate you Mr. Beat!Thanks for giving me new perspectives and smoothing out some of my rough edges when it comes to politics.
Chevron setting the steps for Project 2025
Yes
The only reason to suggest a counsel instead of one man as president is because the executive branch has grown far beyond its original intended powers. Congress has yielded so much of their power to the executive plethora of agencies by wiring barebone legislation that the agencies will then interprete however they want to. That is why it is important that Chevron was reversed. The judicial branch now has a chance to hold the executive agencies to create policies in line with the original intent of the laws Congress passed.
Yes, the unelected “experts in their field” aren’t at all biased or partial. They may be experts in their field of study, but not on governance or the Bill of Rights.
Would you consider doing a video about project 2025?
I wish I knew but I swear a similar thing existed in 08 or 2010. Or the same thing under another name.
When the US was established, a representative democracy was necessary. However, today with the advent of the Internet, we could conceivably have a direct democracy. People would vote directly as issues come up. They could see the comments of their representatives if they wanted, and decide their stance based on any info they want.
Direct democracy is mob rule and strips the minority of their representation
Regarding the Immunity case: Trump ALREADY has been proclaiming (for years) that under Article 2 he can do whatever He wants. Ive watched a few highly qualified lawyers and constitutional scholars opine on this. Any OTHER president, perhaps we could be as "dont worry about it" as Mr Beat is here. But Trump is a special case. He gets in office again and that immunity will give Him all kimds of license
I think Legal Eagle is looking at the current/present legal system as a whole and how disastrous things can and likely will become based on these new decisions if they’re not quickly and thoroughly reigned in.
Congratulations on a million subscribers…you should have ten million. 🎉
Thank you :)
History repeats more then people think
Please everyone watching and/or reading this: please on November get out and vote!!! Your vote matters and makes the difference 💙💙💙💙
mr beat what is your favorite book
Thank you! Yeah these items frustrated me, though I'm more doomer on the immunity thing especially with the NY State case that's already concluded being delayed seeming to be a preview
Very good
Mr. beat what the Supreme Court has done as turned my stomach I’m so ashamed to be an American because of them and Donald Trump and his cohort
History improvises on a theme. 😊
You DID NOT over react regarding chevron. Republicans that say theres alot of "regulatory overreach" must really love lead
Sir you mentioned inflation, a program idea this year 3.2 percent, let's add up inflation over the last 100 years, what's the value of the dollar today if any.
I have a more complex idea: how does inflation over the last century correlate with economic and population growth?
1:13:26 One of the most disappointing things I’ve ever learnt about in American history is that in the 19th century the composer of the New World Symphony, Antonin Dvorak, offered to rewrite our national anthem because he thought it was weird it was a British tune and we refused him. I mean the guy was Czech but he has composed the some of the best and most American music of anyone in my opinion.
Dvorak like the keyboard?
Our weird celebration of England is weird.
The govt is basically derivative but we've long been multiethnic and emphasis on England is how we have the idea of "default" Americans. We should never.
So I agree and good on Dvorak.
Reading many of these comments makes you thankful for the wisdom of the current Supreme Court.
6:24 Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito watching this rn: 😭
well then maybe they should behave differently
let's be glad we are not in a civil war at least we are not killing each other
I'm one of the people who's been freaking out about the immunity ruling and calling this a transition from presidents to elected kings. I've been trying to make myself feel better by being even more cynical, and reminding myself that presidents have always had de facto immunity and been able to do whatever they wanted. This is just making the de facto official, and there's no reason to believe presidents will be any more monarchial and tyrannical now. If they wanted to, they'd have been doing it already. Also, as my family keeps reminding me, none of this really matters in my day-to-day life. I'm not going to get any richer or poorer than I already was. This is a further calcification of the status quo, not a change to it.
I'm skeptical of expanding the court but I think term limits for the SCOTUS would be a good idea. Most importantly, it would incentivise the president to nominate the most qualified people, not just the ones who are the youngest and able to serve a long time. It would also make appointments more predictable for voters. I'm not sure of all the details for term limits, but I agree that 18-25 years would be a good range. This is one of the issues that I think most people would agree with this if they cared enough to be informed. (Along with ranked choice voting and abolishing, or at least reforming, the electoral college)
In the case of Fisher v. United States, it’s important to note that 18 USC chapter 73 deals with “Obstruction of Justice” in the context of judicial (e.g. court) proceedings, as indicated by the subjects of its sections; and §1512 which contained the charge in question is about “Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant”. While the term “official proceeding” mentioned in section (c)(2) is explicitly defined in §1515 (“Definitions for certain provisions; general provision”) section (a)(1)(B) to include “a proceeding before the Congress”, it doesn’t actually define what qualifies as a “proceeding” if anything beyond e.g. a congressional hearing. I certainly don’t agree with the majority’s reasoning on this decision - not even Jackson’s concurrence, which relies on the same reasoning as the other conservative justices - but I can see how the law is ambiguous in what it covers and I understand Barrett’s dissent (which is worth reading.)
I’m Not a Lawyer, but I skimmed through the chapter headings of USC Title 18 and the only other statutes I can see which might apply to the case dealing with interfering with Congress is §351 (e): “Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a) of this section” (referring to a broad scope of government officials) “shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the assault involved the use of a dangerous weapon, or personal injury results, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” and of course §2383: “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” and §2384: “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
12:54 what is he talking about here? he thinks that the supreme court should be less powerful and to do that you have to "strengthen" local, district, and fed appellate courts? what does strengthening these courts entail?
I honestly am split on the chevron ruling on one hand I am so tired of these 500 page bills that no matter the root causes will have sending millions to x foreign country. But I can see how this could slow things down.
It's gonna be worse than that. More micro plastics in your water, more junk in your food. Air quality. The literal most basic things.
@@thewaffle003 explain.
@@zpdrsn6315 Chevron allows agencies in the executive to wrangle out the details when it comes to fulfilling the execution of laws passed by Congress. Judges ruled that agencies can't do that anymore, and that the specifics of the ways the laws can be implemented are ultimately up to the judges. If you're willing to believe the supreme Court is corrupt (which I do), what essentially this means is that the government has exactly zero facility in implementing regulations, and is designed to allow corporations to run absolutely rampant over the government. Look up various rulings by this supreme Court in cases involving the EPA in the last few years, you'll start to see the picture.
@@zpdrsn6315 Wrote a long-ish response but I think YT deleted it, let me know
@@zpdrsn6315 YT killed my last attempted reply, but the short is that killing chevron is designed to allow corporations to absolutely steamroll the government when it comes to regulations (many of which do in fact and are designed to protect people)
To what degree should a president be immune for official acts? Take for instance the Pardoning Power, surely Congress should not be allowed to enact a law and prosecute based on Pardoning. As to to what extent should this be taken along with the rest of the President's powers, such as the power as Commander in Chief
I remember when you streamed the Oral Arguments of Trump v United States and I sent a super chat telling you how horrible it would be to side with Trump. It's absolutely awful how the Court destroyed the checks and balances. With seeing the Opinion and Dissenting of this decision, it's absolutely disheartening. I hope that everyone in the United States remains safe, no matter your political affiliation.
No court will justify assassinating political opposition as an official act. Don’t lose sleep over Sotomayor’s crazy dissent.
@@dereksiegel255Dude the majority of SCOTUS and the congress is republican. Trump with his immunity could order assassination of his opposition and the house majority republican will side with him.
Already needs an update
While the Legal Eagle video did freak me out, (I've never seen them this disturbed about a supreme court decision) I still don't understand how they concluded that the Trump vs United States result was not only something that was undoable from future Supreme Court decisions but also that not even a new Amendment to the constitution could undo these results.
Not undoable in our lifetimes, and maybe not ever if a right-leaning justice decides just to pack the courts as soon as they're in office. Congress is so gerrymandered that the unpopular minority party somehow has enough votes to block anything from actually happening, including banning gerrymandering. The reason for panic is because the people who *should* be trying to stop this refuse to, and don't seem likely to change their minds within our lifetimes.
Reinstate the 2/3 of the senate rule to confirm federal judges
Mr beat. You should do a video on the most unamerican/undemocratic rulings/laws. My top 3 are the alien and sedition act, the red scare, the recent ruling! Hopefully conservatives will admit their mistakes and rebuild the party rather than doubling down on their anti establishment rhetoric.
Shouldn't you save a movie like this for December?
I teach and study black and ethnic studies. It’s so sad to look at history and how each decision plays out and see how Thomas, the replacement for Marshall, has done so much to make sure he has dismantled his legacy. In the name of blackness to defend himself while invoking originalist ideals in his decisions. His hypocrisy is outstanding. Nothing is unbiased, but whew…Thomas and Alito have just been blunt with it.
Your entire field is a politically motivated joke and the funding for such nonsense will dry up soon
@@clayhackney3514 feel better?
@mitchellf.1170 I feel like that statement is kind compared to what they say about me and even demand money in order to push
The fact that you expect something from clearance Thomas because he has a certain ethnic background show you off as a racist tool
The fact that you expect Thomas Clarence to act a certain way for the color of his skin shows your bigotry
Edit: grammar
Congrats on 1 million Mr Beat!
Mr.Beat, as a moderate right-leaning republican woman this was an informative stream. I do dislike Clarence Thomas. Hes worse than Samuel Alito imo
Why do you dislike Clarence Thomas as a republican ?
I know I'm late but congrats on the million subs🎉
Aren't official acts of the President, for the most part at least, outlined in the Constitution as being somewhat controlled by congress?
For example, there was an argument that the President could just use the military to assassinate their political opponent, and they'd be "immune" to prosecution as it'd be an "official act".
I don't agree with this take, particularly in that according to Article I, Section 8, Clause 14- Congress has the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces". In other words, Congress literally can pass law that would restrict the President in a lot of different acts.
@infiniteone783 They actually HAVE passed those laws but now there is nothing that can be done if the president breaks them.
The US constitution states that all treaties signed become the law of the land. Also, that the courts are obligated to enforce those treaties.
This includes those affecting the rules of war, including starting wars, human rights, various illegal weapons (including now nuclear weapons which are now also illegal under international law), the genocide convention, etc....
I believe, the court is attempting to overturn the constitution here, by saying a president cannot be held accountable under international law, which the US is a part of by signing treaties.
Unfortunately, Congress isn't going to do that. Our political system is increasingly polarized and, even though they all know the right thing to do, so many men ees don't do it. I mean, for that matter, Congress could also pass legislation to challenge SCOTUS rulings (without outright overriding them) but they're also not going to do that either
Exactly ... It's impossible to be a dictator / authoritarian usa president ... but the left can't help but fearmonger
The point of the immunity decision is that the President (or former President) can’t be prosecuted even if what he did was against the law … if SCOTUS deems it was an “official” act. That grants both the President and SCOTUS an immense amount of power as they can just ignore the law.
I'm from a small country and our SC has 15 justices. That the US has 9 covering all the states is shocking to me. (I don't know how the state ones factor in)
15 sounds like a reasonable number for the Supreme Court. :)
wouldnt be shocking to you if the 9 supreme court judges generally agreed to your ideology
@@drwalka10In most countries judges don’t have ideologies. In the UK for instance their Supreme Court they consider it to be inappropriate to have an ideology. Former chief justice of the UK Supreme Court lady Brenda hale used to always say she didn’t know the ideologies and politics of her colleagues because it would be inappropriate.
How can you be pro populist and be against direct democracy? Those seem like contradictory viewpoints
Not necessarily contradictory. Maybe he means like you need populism to drive political opinions and candidates, let their policies be vaguely guided by populism but you still need experts and educated people to execute these policies and make laws. For example, id like to see a candidate winning on populist basis of stronger unions, but im not sure would i like to see a nation wide voting on some unionisation law.
the founders liked democracy, but direct democracy is terrible, a form of tyranny, they studied history and learned that when direct democracy resulted in the unjust murders of Socrates of Greece and Jesus of Nazareth.
Right. Being for direct democracy does not mean being able to ignore people's human rights as they are listed in the bill of rights.
On the contrary, ignoring people's human rights & harming those one disagrees with, means one does not understand democracy. Such would not be democracy.
@@ram76921Britain has something called a referendum where they put a certain issue to the people for a vote, brexit was famously one of these I think we should have something like this in the United States
@@quatreraberbawinner2628How well has Brexit worked out for them? Most people don’t understand the complexities and likely repercussions of significantly changing international trade agreements or treaties.
It might be easier to start locally. It blows my mind that in many states (I don't know how many, but it's too many), elected judges don't have to have a law degree. How can someone be the trier of law, when they have no background or training in the law. Law is a very complicated system that takes substantial time and experience to allow a person to do it justice. In some counties, judges and sheriffs are not required to have any legal training, and coroners require neither medical nor legal training. What kind of backwards policies are these?
31:58
I really wish UA-cam would let me know about livestreams when they happen. Re: 28:00: So long as one person holds an opinion that is not popular and is willing to die for it, the war on terror will never end. Re: 46:30: I thoroughly believe that mono-issue voters (those who vote based solely on one issue) are the most dangerous ones. Let's say for example candidate A opposes abortion in all cases and has a record of taking bribes and being very corrupt. Mono-issue voters that oppose abortion in all cases will still vote for candidate A.
I am childfree for the environment and because I see the deathknell of this planet by our numbers alone and as resources are constrained things will get worse for all life on this planet.
The feeding frenzy of the rich and entitled has begun...it is a shine of collapse.
Thanks for helping the Africans by building wells and solar powered electricity.
Those who seek to repeat history in bringing back the Gilded Age, and age of kings, should remember what happens next; political and economic revolution.
lol
Her name is Amy Covid Barrett. Please don't forget. She attended a super spreader event in her name to celebrate her Inexplicable partisan asent to the highest court.
This term was going very well… until Trump v Anderson and Trump v US. Those two were complete dumpster fires.