Four justices appeared absolutely determined, on Wednesday, to overrule one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions in the Court’s entire history.

Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council (1984) is arguably as important to the development of federal administrative law — an often technical area of the law, but one that touches on literally every single aspect of American life — as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was important to the development of the law of racial equality. Chevron is a foundational decision, which places strict limits on unelected federal judges’ ability to make policy decisions for the entire nation.

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during Wednesday’s arguments, Chevron forces judges to grapple with a very basic question: “When does the court decide that this is not my call?”

And yet, four members of the Supreme Court — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — spent much of Wednesday’s arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce speaking of Chevron with the same contempt most judges reserve for cases like Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the pro-segregation decision rejected by Brown.

The open question is whether the Court’s four most strident opponents of this foundational ruling can find a fifth vote.

None of the Court’s three Democratic appointees were open to the massive transfer of power to federal judges contemplated by the plaintiffs in these two cases. That leaves Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett as the two votes that remain uncertain. To prevail — and to keep Chevron alive — the Justice Department needed its arguments to persuade both Roberts and Barrett to stay their hands.

  • @WeeSheep
    link
    1510 months ago

    It’s funny you think they care about people or Jesus.

    • @Candelestine
      link
      English
      -1010 months ago

      They’re not a monolith any more than we are. Thinking of them as one is inaccurate, and makes your fight against them less effective because you’re not taking all the useful information into account.

        • @Candelestine
          link
          English
          -210 months ago

          Shared values of authoritarianism and conspiratorial thinking will do that. But no humans are a monolith. We are all individuals, and we all have a unique blend of biology and experiences.

          Things are not always as they seem.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            210 months ago

            things are not always as they seem

            Their votes sure are. They can disagree on little shit all they want, they’re firmly united in fucking the libs.

            • @Candelestine
              link
              English
              -210 months ago

              I think you’re making an assumption about some 70 million people that is based on your feelings, instead of any kind of objective, verifiable facts. The harsh, cold, brutal reality of real life is not nearly that simple or easy to understand, and will not feel nearly as comforting.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                110 months ago

                There is truly no act or policy so vile that you enlightened centrists won’t call a leftist the true villain for calling somebody an asshole for supporting.

                Just save us the hassle and say you vote Republican.

                • @Candelestine
                  link
                  English
                  -110 months ago

                  That was a very clunky sentence, but assuming I understand you correctly, I never called you anything. Regardless, you can keep your purity, I’m not interested. If the repubs ran someone good, I would consider them, as someone not yoked to an ideology should.

                  They just haven’t in a really long time, that’s all. Does that make being a repub bad? Of course not.