My contention was that they are all radicals. Not that the three are conservative leaning.

The fact that it doesn’t always line up left right doesn’t change the fact that these did.

Unless you consider Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts left wing those three cases didn’t. Which I consider you don’t given this comment. 30% of the time opinions are 9-0. If you think most of the cases fit a partisan line go through the cases count how many follow partisan lines. They list them all here.

If you group the justices in two partisan groups Thomas and RBG & Roberts and Sotomayor certainly wouldn’t be on the same sides.

They seem to be hollow inside to allow for a controlled weighting.

I’m not even sure why you’re bringing it up.

I explained this in the first sentence of my comment.

On most of these cases, the left side has voted one way and the right the other.

Inorder as above:

NG, JR, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v SA, CT, & BK

NG, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v JR, SA, BK, & CT

NG, RBG, SB, SS, BK, & CT v SA, JR, & EK

That’d only be true if you consider Gorsuch, Roberts (for him fair), and Thomas as swing votes siding with the left.

I don’t think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate. Gorsuch for example wrote Bostock v Clayton County (Stopping people from being from being fired for sexual identity or orientation), McGirt v Oklahoma (Upholding a long ignored treaty with the Creek nation), and Ramos v Louisiana (Killing a Jim Crow law designed to disadvantage minorities in criminal trials). They just abide a different judicial doctrine.

I think that case was rightly decided on both a policy and law basis. But after the law was enacted, the agency had interpreted the law to have an understanding on how they should enforce it prior to the judicial interpretation.

So the agency did interpret the law as including bees as fish, correctly. Had the not done so the court case wouldn’t have happened because no one would have been advocating for that interpretation.

I think their alluding to a California Bee interpretation another commenter mentioned and perhaps Sackett v EPA for the one after that. For the switching one I read that probably referring to multiple cases but the BATFE pistol brace interpretation has gone through multiple instances, several implicating hundreds of thousands into felons. For the making up rules I’d guess they were talking about the recent court decision where the agency decided they could hold fishers accountable for compliance officer’s salaries despite the law not state that they could do that.

It absolutely the least democratic, they aren’t representatives they’re judges. They side with the laws enacted by the people, not the people. And all federal judges are appointed.

That power has been with the judicial branch for 180+ years before it was given by the Court to the agency in the 80s to prop up a Reagan interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

The fundamentals of safety we use today wouldn’t be invented for another 2 decades. At the time keeping your finger on the trigger was a fairly universal practice.

Beyond the obvious constitution issues, federalizing every law makes it harder for the people of a state to adjust the laws of their state to fit their desires. Creating a less democratic society.

SCOTUS throws out Roe, bunch of states do constitutional amendments, SCOTUS rules “Na, none of that means anything, all abortions are now illegal!”

I don’t see that happening given the direct text of Dobbs:

The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

The moderator’s mic was probably on too.

Think you meant non elected.

But the point is that policy decisions aren’t to be made by courts or agencies. They are to be made by an elected legislature, informed by the Congregational Research Services. To ensure the separation of powers.

Then the Executive agencies are to be tasked with enforce of the law. And if conflict should arise in the understanding of the law the judiciary is to interpret the law. And while judges are not experts in everything they are the experts in statutory interpretation.

My perspective having known about Chevron before Friday is that while this is a big development for admin law people seem to be overstating the impact it will likely have. Agencies like the EPA, FDA, etc can still make rules as before now courts just have to judge arguments on interpretation impartially, like they did before the SCOTUS made the doctrine in the 80s aiding Reagan. The SCOTUS hasn’t even applied it since 2016.

They are native to N. America as well.

What did the short-tailed weasel ever do to you to deserve this

Forestalling legislation is one of the most pernicious aspects of certain judicial rulings. Rather than concrete protections we get thin shells waiting for a new ruling to crack.

The issue is the 8A is understood to have refered to the punishments being cruel or unusual, per the Court, not the offense. The actual punishments here (fine, court order, or 30 days in jail) are fairly normal for laws, the only odd thing about the statute is what the “crime” is.

The video had mentioned they were weighted to be the same weight as normal cartridges but that last picture is a really good visual of that. The fact they didn’t have a way of telling by marking seems concerning.

If I remember right there was an issue with the Soviets (or maybe Russians at that point) ordering non corrosive ammo so their soldiers had to clean their guns less but they were identical to the corrosive ammo. So they still had to clean them all the time as they couldn’t ever be sure.

It’s the US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for those curious.