I'm recording a pod tomorrow on the EPA lawsuit before the Supreme Court. Let me know if you have anything interesting to say about it or any questions you'd like to have answered.
Convince me that "major questions doctrine" is not just some bullshit that conservatives made up and are now using at their whim to impose political preferences from the bench.
Reading around about this SCOTUS EPA case, one thought I keep encountering is that several conservative justices might stop short of going as far as they want to go because they are concerned about the reputation of the court. And I just wonder ...
If I thought, "doing what I really want to do will make me & the court look like far-right extremist partisan hacks" ... I might have the follow-up thought, "hm, maybe I should want to do something different!" No?
I mean, every time Roberts restrains himself to protect "the reputation of the court," he's basically acknowledging that the real right-wing agenda is indefensible & can't survive the light of day & must be surreptitiously implemented. That never bothers him?
I went into this thinking the case is utterly absurd from top to bottom. Having now discussed it at length with two experts, I realize that it's much more absurd than I had even imagined.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
