...but they've run away from 'strict interpretation' or strict' constitutionalism' in favor of enabling this president, right after they took away executive actions made by the Democratic one that preceded him.
If their ideology was the dismantling of the Constitutionalist state, merely establishing the primacy of the autocratic over the democratic then why put limits on Biden's exercise of those?
If you're talking about a partisan political effort to defend this republican president priorities over his Democratic opponents, then I might agree.
But there's too much inconsistency in these rulings to call them ideological, as the effects and consequences are decreasingly conservative; the tariffs and corporate protections and financing bordering on the socialistic.
so...
A major question for the Supreme Court: Will it treat Trump as it did Biden?
During Biden’s presidency, conservative majorities made it harder to fight climate change under existing law and blocked several actions related to the coronavirus pandemic.
The court ended a pause on evictions, prohibited a vaccine mandate for large businesses and rejected Biden's $500 billion student loan forgiveness program.
In each case, the court held that Congress had not clearly authorized an action of economic and political significance, a legal principle known as the major questions doctrine.
A separate group of small businesses cited Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion in the student loan case to make the point that in relying on IEEPA for the tariffs, Trump “asserts ‘highly consequential power ... beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.’”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-major-question-for-the-supreme-court-will-it-treat-trump-as-it-did-biden/ar-AA1PIsUZ
from Science Of Politics for the Niskanen Center, Matt Grossman:
Many thought the second Trump administration would feature a confrontation between a Supreme Court intent on limiting executive discretion and an empowered president flaunting the rules. Instead, the Supreme Court has largely acquiesced to Trump’s moves, using the shadow docket to overturn lower court actions limiting Trump, even those from Republican judges. Adam Bonica finds that Trump has sought to purge and cut more liberal agencies but has been repeatedly shot down by lower courts. Yet the Supreme Court alone has often sided with the administration, making the courts much less of a check on executive power.
Adam Bonica of Stanford University about his tracking of the early administration and court actions at his blog on data and democracy::
I did a big statistical quantitative analysis of judicial quotes about the administration for cases that were in the broader data set of the executive judicial conflict. And the judges are just pointing out there is no merit to this case and pointing to there’s no way that this has any legal standing. They talk about how disingenuous the lawyers are, how they’re outright lying in a lot of these cases. One judge, Judge McConnell said, “It’s very clear when the administration was freezing these congressional funds that the executive puts itself above Congress.” which is a big statement. A lot of the statements the judges are making are about specific separation of powers claims, where they’re saying you’re impeding on the powers of either Congress or the courts in ways that you would expect the courts to defend their institutional power in this case.
And they are very much at the lower level. But when it’s being appealed to the Supreme Court, we’re just seeing the opposite pattern. So there’s a period between April through May where of the cases that were being ruled on by district courts, if you remember that slew of cases that were ruled against the administration. It was like 90% of them at the lower level were being decided against the administration. And these were, if you read the cases, they’re not… Well, the legal precedent is not on the side of most of them. But then when they go to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has been ruling in favor of them almost with the exception of one case earlier on.
The Supreme Court has been ruling pretty much uniformly in favor of the administration and often in ways that they provide no context to why they’re ruling that way, but they’re granting this relief and it’s really quite striking when you see the statistical evidence that it’s hard to draw any conclusion other than the Supreme Court is doing whatever it can without going too far to advance the broader efforts, especially when it comes to dismantling the existing constitutional order. It’s really quite striking. And again, I think some of the best context for this comes from what these judges are saying. They’re ringing the alarm bell pretty loudly.
https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-supreme-court-is-enabling-trumps-executive-power/
= new reply since forum marked as read