aust.in.determinate
@abw56.bsky.social
Used to wrangle students, now I wrangle data. Snake River, Smoky Mountains, and forever a proud wife guy. Anti Know-Nothing.
Reposted by aust.in.determinate
Kagan's line of questioning here was pretty much Gorsuch's music to invoke the nondelegation doctrine, which he then jumped in and did.
Remember: this case isn't about making Trump king. This case is part of FedSoc's generational project to destroy the fed gov't's regulatory power.
Remember: this case isn't about making Trump king. This case is part of FedSoc's generational project to destroy the fed gov't's regulatory power.
Kagan: formal arguments should not blind us to the real-world realities of what our decisions do.
When we place all these agencies under complete presidential control...we are left with "a president with control over everything, including over much of the law-making" in this country.
When we place all these agencies under complete presidential control...we are left with "a president with control over everything, including over much of the law-making" in this country.
December 8, 2025 at 4:00 PM
Kagan's line of questioning here was pretty much Gorsuch's music to invoke the nondelegation doctrine, which he then jumped in and did.
Remember: this case isn't about making Trump king. This case is part of FedSoc's generational project to destroy the fed gov't's regulatory power.
Remember: this case isn't about making Trump king. This case is part of FedSoc's generational project to destroy the fed gov't's regulatory power.
The fact that he's like, woah hold up this is too smart for my audience is such a huge tell.
December 9, 2025 at 9:36 PM
The fact that he's like, woah hold up this is too smart for my audience is such a huge tell.
Isn't this the majority straight up admitting that they're making a special, carve-out decision not guided by the facts of the case? Since they don't want those facts to be constraining for future rulings? Calvinball.
December 8, 2025 at 4:58 PM
Isn't this the majority straight up admitting that they're making a special, carve-out decision not guided by the facts of the case? Since they don't want those facts to be constraining for future rulings? Calvinball.