Judicary

PennEast will appeal to U.S. Supreme Court over lower court’s adverse ruling | StateImpact Pennsylvania

|

PennEast will appeal to U.S. Supreme Court over lower court’s adverse ruling | StateImpact Pennsylvania

PennEast Pipeline LLC yesterday vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court a lower court ruling that looms as a major impediment to its proposed 120 mile-project to bring natural gas from Pennsylvania into New Jersey.

The company announced in a press release it would seek to overturn a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that denied PennEast’s bid to condemn state-owned lands for its $1 billion project.

Can Congress authorize a private corporation to sue a state over it's objection? This might be a very interesting 11th amendment - sovereign immunity case if it makes it to the Supreme Court. If the Court finds in the favor of PennEast, it would give Congress enormous power to allow them to grant any party the ability to sue a state over any thing Congress see fits. But I doubt the Supreme Court will go that far, but I don't see how you open the barndoor part the way without opening all the way.

I've always thought sovereign immunity is a terrible concept in law, a throwback to the era of Kings and Queens. I don't think the government should be above the law, but instead should be held to same standard as private individuals and businesses. Yes, that would make life more expensive for taxpayers when government screws up. But it would make government more responsible like private businesses.

This Supreme Court Decision Should Worry the EPA and FDA

|

This Supreme Court Decision Should Worry the EPA and FDA

Under existing law, vast discretion isn’t unconstitutional provided there’s an intelligible principle to guide it. The laws that delegate authority for regulation to the Environmental Protection Agency or the Food and Drug Administration confer that authority in extremely general terms — but express the goals of a cleaner environment and safer food and drugs

Yet Gorsuch argued that the very doctrine of the intelligible principle makes no sense, and “has no basis in the original meaning of the Constitution.” In his view, Congress can assign “essentially fact-finding responsibility” to the executive branch. But it can’t delegate “legislative power,” understood very roughly to mean the exercise of central policy-making judgment characterized by “unfettered discretion.”

I think this is a interesting court case to watch, as sometimes administrative agencies do abuse their power making public policy when that's the job of the  congress. 

Supreme Court unanimously rules against policing for profit.

|

Supreme Court unanimously rules against policing for profit.

"The Supreme Court struck an extraordinary blow for criminal justice reform on Wednesday, placing real limitations on policing for profit across the country. Its unanimous decision for the first time prohibits all 50 states from imposing excessive fines, including the seizure of property, on people accused or convicted of a crime. Rarely does the court hand down a ruling of such constitutional magnitude—and seldom do all nine justices agree to restrict the power that police and prosecutors exert over individuals. The landmark decision represents a broad agreement on the Supreme Court that law enforcement’s legalized theft has gone too far. "

Supreme Court Limits Civil Asset Forfeiture, Rules Excessive Fines Apply To States

|

Supreme Court Limits Civil Asset Forfeiture, Rules Excessive Fines Apply To States

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, thus limiting their ability to use fines to raise revenue." Anything to reduce the size, scope, and power of government is a good thing in my opinion. American government has gotten out of control, addicted to revenue and spending, like a heroin addict is addicted to it's drugs. So I think it's a good decision.

America’s highest court needs term limits

|

America’s highest court needs term limits

"A more workable change would be to appoint justices for single 18-year terms—staggered, so that each president gets two appointments per term—rather than for life. Each presidential term would thus leave an equal mark on the court, and no single justice would remain on the bench for 30 or 40 years. New blood would make the court more vital and dynamic. A poll taken in July showed widespread bipartisan support for term limits. So long as former justices were prevented from standing for office, becoming lobbyists or lawyers after stepping down from the court, this would be an improvement."