Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Josh Thomson's avatar

The link to Greg Sargent's piece doesn't appear to work.

Expand full comment
Manqueman's avatar

There’s a reason for I’ve been referred to the Roberts court’s R majority apparatchiks, party hacks or a junta depending on mood: because they’re dedicated to putting party goals first before the law.

For an appellate court should be the beginning and end. For the R majority on the court, it’s just a means.

BTW: kvetching about the overturning of Chevron really should be seen alongside the SEC decision earlier in the week.

There’s a good article, if not a book, cataloging all the reactionary and regressive policies implemented by the Roberts court and how prior decisions were ignored, abused, etc., in rationalizing the twisting of precedent.

While we’re writing RIP to a bunch of things, maybe we can add the system of checks and balances—a rant for another day…

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts