Opinionpalooza: The Day SCOTUS Became President | Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice,...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 чер 2024
- While most everyone was reacting to Thursday’s Presidential debate, we had our eyes trained on the Supreme Court. It was again (surprise!) bad. SCOTUS determined that sleeping outside was illegal in Grants Pass v Johnson. They limited the scope by which insurrectionists could be charged for their actions on January 6, 2021 in Fischer v United States. The unelected robed leaders then laid a finishing blow in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, overturning the decades-long guidance of the longstanding Chevron doctrine and upending the ways in which government agencies can regulate the things they regulate like; clean air, water, firearms your retirement account and oh, medical care.
This term has signaled something especially troubling. While you can certainly be concerned about Trump or Biden being president once again, you should be more worried about how the justices at the Supreme Court have basically made themselves the end-all-be-all of every legislative matter, regardless who wins presidential contests. It should also come as no surprise who will benefit from these decisions (rich people with yachts).
Host Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern and Professor Pam Karlan, co-director of Stanford law school’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic to go over Friday’s rulings and to break down what it means that federal agencies will no longer be able to, you know, do anything reasonable.
Listen to an interview with a doctor helping unhoused people in Grants Pass, OR.
This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)
Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Note: Captions are auto-generated by UA-cam.
Follow Amicus on UA-cam: • The Trump Indictment |...
Subscribe to Slate: / slate
Learn more: slate.com/podcasts/amicus
Follow Slate on Social:
Host Dahlia Lithwick on Twitter: / dahlialithwick
Slate on Twitter - / slate
Slate Podcasts on Twitter - / slatepodcasts
Slate on Facebook: / slate
Slate on Instagram: / slate
Jailing the homeless? Strange way to solve a problem.
I used to be homeless and an active alcoholic. During that time I committed crimes and when I went to jail I was actually relieved because I would have a safe place to sleep, a warm bed and food. Although I couldn't wait to get out of jail so I could take another drink it sure was something that jail was a reprieve compared to the nights on the streets alone. I don't agree with jailing the homeless though, only if they commit crimes. We need to build more houses. If we don't create more housing it's going to get worse.
Thank you for such a great analysis. Especially breaking down Kagan's dissent and how she reveals the years-long project to undermine various precedents via a step by step formula: "Stop applying a decision where one should, throw some gratuitous criticisms into a couple of opinions, issue a few separate writings like concurrences or dissents questioning a decision's premises, give the whole process a few years, and voila. you have a justification for overruling the decision."
Great coverage of the captured SCOTUS
If you're homeless, how is $300 not an excessive fine?
Why wasn't rhat part of the 8th ammendment argued?
Imagine believing a building is more important than the multiple cities looted, burnt, and rioted.
Brilliant discussion. Thanks so much.
Yow. I thought I knew a lot about these already. You-all've clued me in to a number of (mostly awful) insights & nuannces. Scary. And important to be aware of what's coming.I
this is so f#%king disturbing from so many angles, the arrogance, ignorance, hubris, the harm, the disregard for legal precedent and method...but thank you, dahlia, mark, et al for explaining and exposing it
that woman is the physical embodiment of the smell of cat pee...
What a shock that Gorsuch would push to dismantle the administrative state when his mother was appointed to destroy the EPA.
He definitely has mommy issues 😅
By the way, several monitors on fishing ships were "disappeared" (murdered) while on ships.. Murder and bribery are fine, if you do them right?
Hahaha 😆 Hahahaha 😂
You guys can't even tell the difference between a machine gun and an AR with a bump stock.
Lol great argument
Yes, hence why the decision is absurd.
Not "bump stock." "Recoil suppression device" to relieve shoulder pain.😉
@@BellePal You just don't understand how guns work, and you don't care to. A function of a trigger is not the same as a pull of a trigger.
But the case as specifically about regulations regarding nitrogen oxides
Okay. All is lost? It is hopeless? We know.
Hopelessness is the enemy of justice. Injustice prevails where hopelessness persists. - Bryan Stevenson
Erm, nitrous oxide is laughing gas. It is ALSO a powerful greenhouse gas. SCotUS was wrongheaded in its decision, but Gorsuch was not incorrect in characterising N2O (nitrous oxide) as a major threat to stratospheric ozone, with an impact similar to that of CFCs. It would be wise to research unfamiliar topics before relying on them in discussions, especially when criticising others.
Slate isn't known for doing its due research
NITRIC oxide and nitrogen dioxide are pollutants and not the same as nitrous oxide.
@@BellePal nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas, not nitric oxide. Nitrous oxide is also laughing gas.
The supreme Court is going the route for begging forgiveness than asking for permission from the people they are serving.
They are not asking for forgiveness; they simply think they are better and smarter than anyone, anywhere, about anything.