|
Chris Geidner@chrisgeidner.bsky.social |
Roberts, overruling Chevron with incredible and unearned hubris: "Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."
45 replies 123 reposts 520 likes
|
Mark Barrington
@markbarrington.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Experts? We don’t need no steeenkeeng experts! My legal education trumps your scientific knowledge and experience in the field. I AM YOUR GOD NOW!!
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Tom Phillips
@tomph.bsky.social
[ View ] |
"the concept of ambiguity has always evaded meaningful definition" is an incredible bit, rejecting the notion of ambiguity for being too ambiguous
0 replies 1 reposts 15 likes
|
Logan
@loganws.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Is this the last decision for the day?
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Arthur "Two Sheds" Jackson
@sich.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Yeah, because, you know, people who have familiarity with the actual technical workings of, let's say, environmental chemistry and whatnot, don't have as much understanding of how chemicals affect the environment as say, you know, a supreme court justice? I cannot believe the gall of these people
0 replies 3 reposts 40 likes
|
Bert the Kitten
@bertthekitten.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This has got to be the worst Court ever, right? Is there any argument?
2 replies 0 reposts 15 likes
|
Megan Sawyer
@ghostgirl.bsky.social
[ View ] |
JFC.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Matthew Nadler
@areaman65.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I have a crazy idea of how the administration should respond to this decision that will probably appall the lawyers and constitutional scholars. Ignore it. Continue to issue and enforce regulations. If someone complains, tell them to fuck off. Why should I clearly corrupt Court get the final word?
0 replies 1 reposts 6 likes
|
Andy Pearlman
@apearlma.bsky.social
[ View ] |
yeah, I saw that. just bizarre anonymous reply guy type statement
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
W.A. Kuemmel
@dogberryjr.bsky.social
[ View ] |
And the Roberts Court method of resolving statutory ambiguities is chiefly hiding behind standing and laking the lower courts do the hard work. Beautiful.
1 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
|
Bernard Leclair
@bernardleclair.bsky.social
[ View ] |
He has to protect his wife sources of "gratuities". Here :
accountable.us/chief-justic...
0 replies 2 reposts 2 likes
|
Chair of the Sewer Maintenance Board
@sidewalkslam.bsky.social
[ View ] |
ah yes, courts well known for such stunning insight as: - black people are property - it's okay if black people are forced into ghettoes as long as they have an equal sized blanket - sterilising people is great if i think they're stupid -
1 replies 0 reposts 43 likes
|
|
@peterkurze.bsky.social
[ View ] |
These issues are very easy to decide. You just look to see who’s offering the biggest gratuities.
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
|
@peterkurze.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Senate judiciary should flat out summon this SOB to appear, explain himself, and submit to questioning. We’ve long ago moved from consent to acquiescence. Next stop: rebellion.
0 replies 0 reposts 12 likes
|
DON FERRARI
@donferrari.bsky.social
[ View ] |
What the ever loving fucking hell is this bullshit
0 replies 0 reposts 8 likes
|
Creative Wronging
@creativewronging.bsky.social
[ View ] |
So, the Court isn't there to react to resolve disputes, it is there to make the decisions themselves. Why even fucking have elections then,if the High Clerics get to adjudicate All Things Under His Sun?
1 replies 4 reposts 30 likes
|
MikeasaService
@ultor.bsky.social
[ View ] |
We're just calling balls and strikes but if we don't like the count on the batter we'll rewrite the rule book on the fly. -- Roberts, probably.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Steph Sleeper
@drsleeps.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Between this and Alito claiming he knows when an amniotic sac rupture would lead to sepsis? The audacity.
0 replies 0 reposts 28 likes
|
Cynbel Terreus
@cynbelterreus.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Oh so the justices are experts in all things now? FUCKING HELL
4 replies 0 reposts 57 likes
|
b-boy bouiebaisse
@jbouie.bsky.social
[ View ] |
this is actually an insane claim, lmao
19 replies 7 reposts 390 likes
|
Huntington W. Sharp
@huntingtonsharp.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Do they know that agencies have whole legal departments?
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Wait, what?
@johnnyphenomic.bsky.social
[ View ] |
And he’s saying this a mere week after the Rahimi decision reinforced that Roberts’ court has no competence at all in resolving statutory ambiguities…
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
Ed Shoothowdy 🍉
@futureed.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Has he met any lawyers? Or judges? Or litigated at all?
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
Luis 🦝🐦⬛🤖
@loosf.bsky.social
[ View ] |
ah yes experts do not have expertise, the only thing that matters is *power*
0 replies 0 reposts 14 likes
|
Slackermom
@slackermom.bsky.social
[ View ] |
*loud scream GIF*
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Dennis
@dcoatesecon.bsky.social
[ View ] |
More importantly, Courts have no special competence in resolving scientific ambiguities, yet this Supreme Court acts as though they know everything about everything.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Dan Mandell
@dhistoryman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Because of course federal judges are trained biologists, epidemiologists, etc. etc., right? Right?
0 replies 0 reposts 10 likes
|
Carolyn Kellogg
@paperhaus.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I'm not a lawyer, but even I can tell that's preposterous.
0 replies 0 reposts 4 likes
|
@jiminnh.bsky.social
[ View ] |
JFC. This is nuts. I teach h.s. civics. My intro. to the bureaucracy is this hypothetical: suppose you want to be sure that when you take an aspirin it doesn't kill you. You have two choices as to who will test it to make sure it's safe. One is me, who has spent my entire adult life (1/ )
1 replies 3 reposts 14 likes
|
GA_Brownie
@gabrownie.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I would love to refer him to my asbestos NESHAP case wherein I had to explain to the judge 13 (!) times why work practices equal emission limits under the NESHAP as upheld by the appellate court in a previous case. Grrr...
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
Schrödinger the ᓚᘏᗢ
@iamschrodinger.bsky.social
[ View ] |
That's why I take my car to a judge and not a mechanic.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Larry Wolfarth
@infoshaman.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Citizens United showed Roberts had no understanding of Political Science and US History. The Chevron decision shows he overturns science and economics.
2 replies 2 reposts 12 likes
|
Susan Bigelow 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
@whateversusan.bsky.social
[ View ] |
King John of the Bench
1 replies 0 reposts 16 likes
|
Al G Rhythm
@algrhythm.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Courts are competent? Who knew? Has this dude even met other people in the legal system?
0 replies 0 reposts 4 likes
|
Ellz
@ellz.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Oh brother. Shame on the ever disappointing lower case "c" court
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Sean
@publichealth.bsky.social
[ View ] |
just totally disconnected from reality. john roberts, partisan hack
0 replies 0 reposts 31 likes
|
Lorcan Murphy
@wasdmatter.bsky.social
[ View ] |
With Alito and Thomas and various lower federal justices, Roberts is showing us his special competence in administration. Let him be judged by the public on this special competence of administration.
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Claudia Calhoon
@claudiacalhoon.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This is the literal opposite of what the health policymaking textbook I use teaches.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@nighthawkdanger.bsky.social
[ View ] |
this man is high as fuck off the smell of his own farts, jfc
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Nolan Zugernat
@zugernat.bsky.social
[ View ] |
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so insane and dangerous.
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
Hipster Sasquatch
@hipstersasquatch.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Good god. I'm not a lawyer and even I know that's a fucked up thing for a Justice to say.
0 replies 0 reposts 4 likes
|
CisHet Billionaire
@bennettelder.net
[ View ] |
Courts do.
0 replies 2 reposts 7 likes
|
TheBaroness
@thebaroness.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Wow. That is beyond my ability to articulate in human words the arrogance and disdain of this court.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
Chris Geidner
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I acknowledge that "unearned hubris" is a poor phrasing. That is either repetitive or creating an unintentional double negative in effect. Hubris. It's hubris. I am listening and learning. And, in the absence of sleep, will at least drink more caffeine.
7 replies 3 reposts 149 likes
|
@chasmat.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Would expect no less, and in no less self-aggrandizing terms, from the man who wrote Parents Involved.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Ben Munson
@archaica.bsky.social
[ View ] |
ah yes "the Framers" wrote Marbury v. Madison
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes