Conservative Supreme Court justices reverse precedent on property rights cases | TheHill
Supreme Court
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.
"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
"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
"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."
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health and the case for Supreme Court term limits
"The core problem here is the stakes of Supreme Court nominations: They’re too damn high. Candidates serve for life — which, given modern longevity and youthful nominees, can now mean 40 years of decisions — and no one knows when the next seat will open. President Jimmy Carter served four years and saw no open seats. President George H.W. Bush served four years and filled two. Barack Obama served two terms and confirmed two justices. Donald Trump isn’t even two years into his presidency and, thanks to McConnell’s assist with Merrick Garland, he’s already filled the same number of vacancies as Obama did in eight. The result isn’t merely an undemocratic branch of government but a randomly undemocratic branch of government. And that randomness, and the stakes of seeing it play out in your side’s favor, turn Supreme Court nominations into bloodsport."
Brett Kavanaugh
I am fairly neutral about the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.🙄 While I kind of liked Neil Gorsuch, as a hunter and outdoorsman, I can’t really say that about Kavanaugh, who strikes me as little more then just another conservative vote on the court. 🏛Kavanaugh is just another prep-school, bratty suburbanite who has never left the land of marble countertops and brass door handles, not somebody of real intellect or a passion for seeking justice — one who got away with raping girls when he was young based on his economic privilege.🤑
But I do think he will be good for protecting the second amendment and our rights to own guns, hunt and fish, 🔫 and limiting the size and scope of the federal government in many parts of our lives. We could finally see some more progress on second amendment — which would be wonderful news for many Americans. I am more skeptical on his views on limiting police powers, and protecting the first amendment and the rights of those accused of wrong doing by the government. I also wonder what his small government beliefs will be on efforts to control pollution by large corporate polluters? Or healthcare, labor and social justice?
Ultimately, I have very little say on who is on the US Supreme Court. 👪 It’s not my appointment to make. I voted for Jill Stein for President in 2016, but evidently she didn’t win and elections have consequences or so I’m told. For the most part the decisions on the Supreme Court won’t impact my ordinary life, but it’s still a fascinating debate worthwhile to watch.🗞