No, they didn't. This is just the kneejerk panic reaction to not understanding the law, or the opinion. You just want to be mad, and this is rage bait. Allow me to actually tell you what happened, because I did read the opinion.
What it said was the law, as-written, does not apply to state and local officials. It still applies to federal ones. And any state and local laws applying a similar law to state and local officials still stands. Congress can also still change the law to apply to state and local, but that would trigger a 10A challenge.
It applied the "Rule of Leniency" which is a very good thing. Also that rule is Gorsuch's baby, he applies it in pretty much every case he can, and I haven't found one where he did not. The rule of leniency says, basically:
Whenever a criminal law is ambiguous, it must be interpreted in a manner most favorable to the defendant.
And that is what you want. Trust me, that is absolutely what you want. It's a natural outgrowth of the presumption of innocence. You must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, so if there is doubt as to how the law should be applied, then that doubt favors the defendant.
This case was similar to the bumpstcok case, and in both cases SCOTUS essentially said:
The law says Y, not X. Maybe congress meant for it to say X, but that is not what it says. If congress wants it to say X, they can change it to say X. But currently, it says Y.
And that is how the law should be. Law works as-written, especially criminal law. This is what you want, because let me give you a very possible example of it worked "as interpreted" instead:
Well, I interpret that life starts at conception, so abortion is murder, guilty.
See how quickly that can go very wrong? Criminal law works as-written, and this was the correct decision. It may not be the moral decision, or the desired decision, but that is for CONGRESS to act on. Congress and only Congress can make laws.
This was an extremely narrow ruling, it did not say "Bribery is legal" it said "The law, as currently written, does not apply to State and Local officials."
You want to be mad at someone, be mad at congress for writing shitty laws. Only Congress has the power to make laws. The Executive branch must enforce them as written, and the judiciary must apply them as written.
You want to be mad at someone, be mad at congress for writing shitty laws. Only Congress has the power to make laws. The Executive branch must enforce them as written, and the judiciary must apply them as written.
Fucking exactly. The Supreme Court wouldn't be as much of an issue if Congress wasn't a shit show and if the solution to get around deadlock wasn't to try and use the Supreme Court as a way to legislate.
And if we're reading signals right, that's going to become a LOT more important once Chevron Deference is struck down in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. (Sorry I always reverse that case and incorrectly call it Raimondo v. Loper)
I am reminded of senator Sasse during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings.
There's no verse of school house rock that says give a whole bunch of power to the alphabet soup agencies, and let them decide what the governments decision should be for the people. Because the people don't have any way to fire the bureaucrats. Because people can't navigate their way through the bureaucracy, they turn to the supreme court looking for politics. The supreme court becomes our substitute political battleground.
And tell me, with a serious face, that he's wrong. Congress has for too long just abdicated their powers of lawmaking to the executive to determine. No. That's not separation of powers. And we saw it again today in SEC v. Jarksey:
"a defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator. Rather than recognize that right, the dissent would permit Congress to concentrate the roles of prosecutor, judge and jury in the hands of the Executive Branch. That is the very opposite of the separation of powers that the Constitution demands."
And yes, Sasse was a Republican Senator, but before reddit tried to "Guilty by association", let me remind them that Sasse was one of seven Republican senators to vote to convict Donald Trump of incitement of insurrection in his second impeachment trial.
Completely agree. There is a very valid point in claiming too much authority has been given to agencies. Republicans probably want to strip too much power from them but at the same time agencies shouldn't be able to just create/change laws unchecked.
If (when) they are successful in limiting and the power of various agencies it's going to be awful because I doubt we'll see many laws get through unless there's some serious upsets in the upcoming elections.
I really wish more people stayed involved and voted.
It's a bit of a self fueling problem though. The reason Congress doesn't compromise and pass laws is because they'll just get it done through the Executive or the Supreme Court. If we take away their work around of getting things done and force them to only get things done by discussion and compromise and voting we might actually be able to get things back on track.
Shelby County V Holder. Entirely proper law passed with a massive bipartisan vote with the most crystal clear constitutional authority possible, and the court still over ruled it for "reasons".
You are assuming that the court has something even resembling good faith. It does not.
No matter what this will be a catalyst for change, unfortunately there's no foreseeable positive outcomes that don't require ridiculous pie in the sky optimism. Moving these policy decisions from experts to politicians and judges appointed through political process deepens the challenge of regulatory enforcement to impossible levels. It means thousands more hours of court cases where judges become de facto policymakers with no expertise in the matters they're deciding. With already long wait times and the myriad ways the courts can be tied up for years in procedural matters, regulatory enforcement will become impossible and regulatory capture will be guaranteed. If the politician in charge of the agency decides nothing will be enforced or chooses to engage in discriminatory enforcement it'll be years before a court challenge will resolve it, and depending on who appointed the judge it could just be an entirely pointless endeavor as a growing number of them were confirmed to their seats for their political loyalty rather than their judicial capability. It's most likely leading to complete gridlock while suits and countersuits and appeals all have to be thoroughly expended before anything can be done. Meanwhile our waters will be poisoned, our fisheries played out completely, the markets will finish consuming what remains of the middle class' wealth and our education system will be starved to death.
With more than a third of the people supporting a no compromise, burn it all down ideology there's no way to ever reach consensus, and with the intensity of foreign interference and propaganda targeting the US there's little chance of that ideology softening within my lifetime. I fear the de-evolution of our government will lead to abandonment of democracy in favor of an authoritarian system that is at least functionally responsive compared to what we're now left with.
56
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt 5d ago edited 5d ago
No, they didn't. This is just the kneejerk panic reaction to not understanding the law, or the opinion. You just want to be mad, and this is rage bait. Allow me to actually tell you what happened, because I did read the opinion.
What it said was the law, as-written, does not apply to state and local officials. It still applies to federal ones. And any state and local laws applying a similar law to state and local officials still stands. Congress can also still change the law to apply to state and local, but that would trigger a 10A challenge.
It applied the "Rule of Leniency" which is a very good thing. Also that rule is Gorsuch's baby, he applies it in pretty much every case he can, and I haven't found one where he did not. The rule of leniency says, basically:
And that is what you want. Trust me, that is absolutely what you want. It's a natural outgrowth of the presumption of innocence. You must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, so if there is doubt as to how the law should be applied, then that doubt favors the defendant.
This case was similar to the bumpstcok case, and in both cases SCOTUS essentially said:
And that is how the law should be. Law works as-written, especially criminal law. This is what you want, because let me give you a very possible example of it worked "as interpreted" instead:
See how quickly that can go very wrong? Criminal law works as-written, and this was the correct decision. It may not be the moral decision, or the desired decision, but that is for CONGRESS to act on. Congress and only Congress can make laws.
Here is the opinion, in pdf form
This was an extremely narrow ruling, it did not say "Bribery is legal" it said "The law, as currently written, does not apply to State and Local officials."
You want to be mad at someone, be mad at congress for writing shitty laws. Only Congress has the power to make laws. The Executive branch must enforce them as written, and the judiciary must apply them as written.