Expanding the court is problematic. Some future Congress could just expand it more to tip the balance back to harshly conservative.
A much better answer is to impose AND ENFORCE a mandatory code code of ethics, and require nominees to get a) a thorough public vetting (I.e., not the FBI cover up Kavanaugh got) and b) be actually voted on by Congress (e.g., what Garland didn’t get).
“Oh, you stacked the Court? Ok, then. We’ll just stack it back to a way we like.” is just a seesaw approach that leads to chaos and won’t solve anything.
“Doesn’t matter how ideological a person you are, that will be exposed and if you do get on the Court anyway you’ll be constrained.” is the approach that is far more likely to get the outcome we need.
A great assessment of some of the cases that will come in front of the court in the near term. The court wants to interpret a modern world by 18th and 19th standards stemming from an idealized view of American history that overlooks the prevalence of domestic violence and its relationship with guns, the rampant struggle for consumers to secure fairness and accountability against corporate tycoons, the steady drumbeat of rich conservatives trying to avoid paying taxes while complaining in a condescending manner about the people screwed over from the U.S. losing its tax revenue and thus it's public square, and finally, the hypocrisy of conservatives regarding the free market and the freedom of expression and speech.
Thank you for the summary. I'm not going to hold my breath that this Supreme Court will uphold the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since the majority doesn't care about the impact of the law on people. Same for Rahimi and the safety of women. I am interested in reading the arguments in Moore since the 16th Amendment states that Congress "shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived". This Supreme Court majority could certainly twist those words because originalism only applies when it produces the result this majority wants. The NetChoice cases may prove once again that this majority doesn't really do it's homework.
Great article, but I think it may have gotten one important nuance backwards. I'm no legal expert, but the hosts of the outstanding podcast "Strict Scrutiny" are, and they make a crucial point about the CFPB case in their 10/2 episode (starting at about 41:00).
Ms. Needham claims that while "the CFPB is now entangled in an arcane constitutional fight about whether they properly receive funding... what this case really is about is the right of companies to stomp on consumers without oversight or consequences." However, the "arcane" funding issue in question also undergirds the Fed, the FDIC, Medicare, and Medicaid. Destroying the more newly-created CFPB on "constitutional" grounds would also put these other longstanding and critical programs in severe jeopardy.
So it's perhaps more apt to say that while conservatives' SIDE benefit of a win in the CFPB case would be "the right of companies to stomp on consumers without oversight or consequences," what this case is REALLY about is their broader, long-cherished project of shrinking government down to bathtub-drowning size.
Expand the court. These six don’t respect the Constitution and treat us like fools
Expanding the court is problematic. Some future Congress could just expand it more to tip the balance back to harshly conservative.
A much better answer is to impose AND ENFORCE a mandatory code code of ethics, and require nominees to get a) a thorough public vetting (I.e., not the FBI cover up Kavanaugh got) and b) be actually voted on by Congress (e.g., what Garland didn’t get).
“Oh, you stacked the Court? Ok, then. We’ll just stack it back to a way we like.” is just a seesaw approach that leads to chaos and won’t solve anything.
“Doesn’t matter how ideological a person you are, that will be exposed and if you do get on the Court anyway you’ll be constrained.” is the approach that is far more likely to get the outcome we need.
A great assessment of some of the cases that will come in front of the court in the near term. The court wants to interpret a modern world by 18th and 19th standards stemming from an idealized view of American history that overlooks the prevalence of domestic violence and its relationship with guns, the rampant struggle for consumers to secure fairness and accountability against corporate tycoons, the steady drumbeat of rich conservatives trying to avoid paying taxes while complaining in a condescending manner about the people screwed over from the U.S. losing its tax revenue and thus it's public square, and finally, the hypocrisy of conservatives regarding the free market and the freedom of expression and speech.
Thank you for the summary. I'm not going to hold my breath that this Supreme Court will uphold the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since the majority doesn't care about the impact of the law on people. Same for Rahimi and the safety of women. I am interested in reading the arguments in Moore since the 16th Amendment states that Congress "shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived". This Supreme Court majority could certainly twist those words because originalism only applies when it produces the result this majority wants. The NetChoice cases may prove once again that this majority doesn't really do it's homework.
Great article, but I think it may have gotten one important nuance backwards. I'm no legal expert, but the hosts of the outstanding podcast "Strict Scrutiny" are, and they make a crucial point about the CFPB case in their 10/2 episode (starting at about 41:00).
Ms. Needham claims that while "the CFPB is now entangled in an arcane constitutional fight about whether they properly receive funding... what this case really is about is the right of companies to stomp on consumers without oversight or consequences." However, the "arcane" funding issue in question also undergirds the Fed, the FDIC, Medicare, and Medicaid. Destroying the more newly-created CFPB on "constitutional" grounds would also put these other longstanding and critical programs in severe jeopardy.
So it's perhaps more apt to say that while conservatives' SIDE benefit of a win in the CFPB case would be "the right of companies to stomp on consumers without oversight or consequences," what this case is REALLY about is their broader, long-cherished project of shrinking government down to bathtub-drowning size.