You could, if the following week you wanted to be on the list of scotus disbarment orders.
Thankfully SCOTUS is moving away from rigid minimum contacts analysis Ford essentially told large manufacturers that it’s going to be hard to win on a due process. What kills me is that we still don’t have a requirement of consent jurisdiction and a minimum amount of insurance for foreign companies doing business or selling products in the US.
Solid guesses by at Louis. I’ll also bet you get a formal dismissal or dig of the title 42 case, with a dissent.
Boo, the good ones (CA Pork, AA, and EPA) will need to wait.
As to the latter, the inability of congress to act does not in any way make something less their job, or more within the executive’s rights.
However, this seems to be more and more the case especially with MAGAts in Congress. Seemingly, the Republican /MAGAts agenda seems to be centered on “scab picking” as opposed to sitting down and legislating solutions....see immigration policy, see ObamaCare, see debt ceiling....
Both parties spend/waste an inordinate amount of time picking scabs.
While I agree with you on the dysfunction of Congress, that’s the basis of the Constitution, no? (I don’t know anything about these particular cases, just commenting generally)
So after ruling that wealthy corporations can rain as much influence on lawmakers as they want, the court is now deferring to those same lawmakers.
You know, this is a frequent criticism that Joe Biden has for Congress, too. Altho Joe’s criticisms are directed more at the opposition party, his words resonate with me. Shit doesn’t get done in Congress and for the most part there are 20-30 Congressmen that are responsible for this “nothingness.” And there are 530+ members of Congress.
See my post above. Citizens United made an already poorly-functioning legislative body exponentially worse. And now SCOTUS just washes their hands and says that our problems need to be solved by the same instrument that they themselves damaged.
Rocky, I'm not sure i understand your question. but if you are suggesting that Congress is supposed to act "deliberately", you are correct sir.
As can wealthy individuals, and poor ones. All points of view have plenty of champions. Oh, and by the way, wealthy corporations are generally smart enough to spread their largess on an equal opportunity basis.
Just a rhetorical question. My point is the court seems to increasingly be saying stay in your lane. Which (to me) is the basis of the sep of powers set forth in the Constitution. And a failure of Congress to act doesn’t give the exec branch carte blanche to step in and do so.
So your solution is to have the SCOTUS over step it's constitutional authority or permit POTUS to overstep his constitutional authority rather than actually fix the problem with the branch of government who is dysfunctional, it that correct? Sorry that is not the solution. Both parties in congress need to learn to work together and compromise and stop trying to stick to the other team at the peril of the entire country.
Abby….the Constitution is NOT a black and white document and is an ever evolving document. Now I know that sticks in your craw but that’s the way it is. The Court has mostly in the past worked to keep the ship of state between the rails…no document written 200+ years ago can be literally, word for word interpreted. Bob Dylan was never a SC justice but his advice that the times are changing , is advise we all should live with.
It's not SCOTUS job to govern, either. IMHO, SCOTUS is doing the right thing by continuing to put everything back on Congress as much as possible. Congress has too long pushed their job on the executive departments.
Interest you say this now in this context. When Joe Biden doesthis (chooses to make Congress accountable) you and yours criticize Joe for his “lack of leadership”...
