State of the Discussion

Alito: The executive can make 'regulations' all they want, but Chevron is dead, we will no longer defer to to those regulations. Instead, the courts themselves will look at the law, the actual code passed by Congress and signed into law., which the executive has to follow, without paying much attention to 'regulations' that the executive has invented to go on top of that.

This will result in a lot of people (including the most important people, corporations) that are bound by those regulations suing, to try to get them overturned. And if this happens, the court will direct the executive to stop enforcing those regulations and do something else.

This is clearly what we want and understand will happen.

*one year later*

Alito: Yes, the executive has chosen to do things that appear in violation of the plain letter of law, and court decided that it was in violation.

But, like, let's ask ourselves, what are we really talking about here: Does that court even have the _jurisdiction_ decide something like that? Do we, as the courts, even have a right to comment on how they understand the law with regard to themselves? That seems like an internal matter for the executive branch.

--

I guess it's not really the same thing, in that DOGE is operate entirely outside the entire regulatory system set up by law, and moreover is operating in complete violation of basically every law and even the constitutional 'advise and consent' clause. (Is Elon in charge of this thing, or not?!). Instead of Congress explicitly delegating power by making a law that says 'Hey, Executive branch, we want you to enforce rules to accomplish X, a thing that is way outside our scope of knowledge, so we won't make the specific rules. Instead, here is a system for that that will take people with expertise and a bunch of outside comment to make some regulations regulating X in a long careful process. Do that, and then enforce those regulations'.

The Executive coming up the exact amount of fire resistance a building needs, and requiring that: Conservatives on the Supreme Court say no, only _they_ get to decide how much a building needs.

The Executive driving down the road shooting off shotguns and hurtling Molotov cocktails at buildings: Conservatives on the Supreme Court say 'Are we really allowed to say they can't do that?'

Authoritarianism continued: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/us/politics/trump-perkins-coie.html

With the order, Perkins Coie becomes the second such firm to be targeted by the president. Late last month, he signed a similar memorandum attacking Covington & Burling, which has done pro bono legal work for Jack Smith, who as special counsel pursued two separate indictments of Mr. Trump.

While the Covington memorandum sought to strip clearances and contracts from that firm, the Perkins Coie order goes much further, seeking to also limit its lawyers’ access to federal buildings, officials and jobs in a way that could cast a chilling effect over the entire legal profession.

The president’s animosity toward Perkins Coie dates back eight years, to when two lawyers at the firm, Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann, played roles in what eventually became an F.B.I. investigation to determine if anyone on the 2016 Trump presidential campaign conspired with Russian agents to influence the outcome of that election. Both lawyers left that firm years ago.

I like the idea that a 'single judge' is somehow not enough.

What does that mean?

Yes, Alito, a single judge can, via due process of the law, decide that a party cannot stop disbursing payment to the another part yin a lawsuit, in violation of the law. Because things in individual cases are generally decided by single judges. The judge in charge of the case.

We don't really have a process where multiple judges vote on a thing in a case, or whatever you think happen, except at the Supreme Court level...which you did? You were part of it?

I wonder if he saw the results of the way-too-early 2028 Dem Primary poll and decided he needed to outflank Harris fast.. encourage her to just aim for CA gov.

Anyway hard not to see this serving as a green light for others to start edging away from the left flank.

InMD: modern day Russia’s nuclear weapons don’t actually work.

Yes. Nukes require extremely expensive maintenance and go bad over a few years because of half life.

The corruption in Russia is so bad they can't have military tires.

Russia pulled out of the Test Ban treaty and they've made a large number of nuclear threats. They have no reason to avoid testing a nuke and every reason to show they still have them.

They don't even need to announce a test before hand. They could try to set off a hundred nukes one at a time until it works and then claim they only tested that one.

A nuclear test would be a massive step towards winning the war politically. If they still had them they'd showcase it.

thanks for reading, slade. feel like I’m right, which is why I wrote it, and people should grow up and not make everything about them or their partisan purity. All have fallen short of the glory of the lord, so saith the gospel.

Mr. Donaldson is entirely correct. Expecting yesterday's, today's, and tomorrow's grandstanding occupants of the White House to give up their recitation of programs that will be proposed and never enacted, the parade of lame, halt, and wronged, and other tomfoolery is a fool's errand.

jaybird, thanks for reading! And dynamite contribution. Always excited to see you in the comments.

Yes, I think this model is here to stay for a bit.

Let me get this straight, the ports where ships that cannot go through the Panama Canal get their shipments unloaded and loaded back on ships that can go through the canal has no control over what goes through. You sure about that?

OK, let's come at it this way: is my trying to make Tate irrelevant worth the opportunity cost. Anyone that thinks that idiot is worth a 2nd thought is going to take a lot of convincing.

We have plenty on the record of DJT stiffing contractors. The more amazing part is he got 4 Supreme Court justices to say that kind of behavior is OK.

Rushdie said he couldn't be a heretic because he wasn't a Muslim. I'll take him at his word.

I don't remember Protestants trying to take communion in Catholic churches, or thinking there was anything odd about it. Maybe the Catholic church has lightened up on that -- I haven't been paying attention -- but they're entitled to change their club rules.

When I was a kid, the tragedy of schism meant that baptized protestants couldn't partake of the Eucharist. I understand that the Catholic church has lightened up on that in the last decade or so.

In any case, if memory serves, there was an amount of resentment on the part of protestants in general that they couldn't partake of the Eucharist.

Lemme tell ya, anybody who showed up in the Babtist church could take a pinch of bread and a shot of grape juice even if they were Methodists.

So, at the very least, there were hard feelings on the part of those told that they were Heretics living in apostasy. This usually resulted in hammering on several of the (now moot) 95 theses.

As for the Grand Mufti declaring people heretics, the most recent example I can think of is Rushdie.

Is it okay to use him as an example?

I generally think Newsom is a good governor and gets way more heat than he deserves but his new podcast and comments on transathletes are perplexing and boneheaded

Leaving aside that that is entirely unresponsive, suppose you tell me what would happen if the Pope or the Grand Mufti declared you a heretic? Do you think they even think they could?