Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Lasher

(27,497 posts)
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 10:44 AM Dec 2020

The Supreme Court Wants to Revive a Doctrine That Would Paralyze Biden's Administration

It could cripple even the most basic government functions.

Joe Biden promised us an FDR-sized presidency—starting with bold action to halt the spread of COVID-19, end the worst economic downturn in decades, and stop the climate crisis. Biden could use regulation and executive action to move quickly to decarbonize the economy, cancel student loan debt, and raise wages. But a Biden administration has an even bigger problem than two long-shot special elections in Georgia: the new 6–3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court may soon burn down the federal government’s regulatory powers.

At least five conservative justices have signaled that they are eager to revive the “non-delegation doctrine,” the constitutional principle that Congress can’t give (“delegate”) too much lawmaking power to the executive branch. On paper, the rule requires Congress, when delegating power to an agency, to articulate an “intelligible principle” (like air pollution regulation needed “to protect public health”) to guide the agency’s exercise of that power. But in practice, the nondelegation doctrine is effectively dead. The court has only struck down two statutes on nondelegation grounds—and none since 1935.

Today, most of the government’s work is done through the “administrative state,” the administrative agencies and offices, like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Education, which issue regulations and enforce laws. Congress doesn’t have the capacity to pass laws that nimbly address complex, technical, and ever-changing problems like air pollution, COVID-19 exposure in workplaces, drug testing, and the disposal of nuclear waste. So Congress tasks agencies staffed with scientists and other specialists to craft regulations that directly address those problems. This division of responsibility—Congress legislates policy goals and agencies implement them effectively—is the foundation of functional government.

(snip)

Government doesn’t work without the administrative state. But that’s sort of the point. The conservative justices have long been hostile to regulation and executive action. And now they may finally have the votes to bring virtually any regulation to a halt. At least five justices are ready to drop a 1,000-pound anvil on any Biden administration rule that displeases them.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/12/supreme-court-gundy-doctrine-administrative-state.html

If he doesn't want to return to the Gilded Age, Biden will have to pack the SCOTUS - and not just with moderates. McConnell would block every nominee in the Senate unless they are rightwing extremists. There is so much riding on the GA Senate runoffs.

29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Supreme Court Wants to Revive a Doctrine That Would Paralyze Biden's Administration (Original Post) Lasher Dec 2020 OP
K&R Solly Mack Dec 2020 #1
defund the presidency? samnsara Dec 2020 #2
The GOP has finally gotten the activist judges they pretended to abhor. Lasher Dec 2020 #4
The US faces enormous challenges, this issue is way beyond appalachiablue Dec 2020 #3
Scotus rso Dec 2020 #5
Manchin is one of my 2 senators. Lasher Dec 2020 #25
Manchin rso Dec 2020 #27
K&R, and thank you. But please, please, people: stop saying Biden needs to "pack the courts"! Mister Ed Dec 2020 #6
I would like to know if you have a better way to describe this critical need. Lasher Dec 2020 #9
"Balance the courts"? "Court reform?" Almost any label for this critical need would be better. Mister Ed Dec 2020 #12
That's a sound reply. Harker Dec 2020 #15
You are right, we've got to do better with our messaging. Lasher Dec 2020 #23
You're so right. A counterattack is absolutely essential. Mister Ed Dec 2020 #24
Unpack the courts. mjvpi Dec 2020 #19
Yes, yes! This is what the GOP really want... malthaussen Dec 2020 #7
Time to grow the Supreme Court. Baitball Blogger Dec 2020 #8
Per Trump/McConnell rules, time to ignore the Supreme Court. lagomorph777 Dec 2020 #26
Wi Scotus Universal Karma Dec 2020 #10
This reminded me of Wisconsin as well. If you lose the election you restrict the powers of the jalan48 Dec 2020 #13
Simple expand the court post haste. But win those 2 seats in Georgia first. KPN Dec 2020 #11
They seem to have forgotten their beloved "unitary executive" theory. ET Awful Dec 2020 #14
They didn't forget jmowreader Dec 2020 #20
Hell, we were at that point about 200 years ago (give or take a score or two) ET Awful Dec 2020 #22
Trump gave them a taste of government run by CEOs Baked Potato Dec 2020 #16
Leave it to Republicans. Every single time a Democrat wants PatrickforO Dec 2020 #17
An even better solution to the court problem: lastlib Dec 2020 #18
INstead of "packing the court", how about evening it out? 3825-87867 Dec 2020 #21
Of course, as soon as an R is POTUS again, Dark n Stormy Knight Dec 2020 #28
Yes. This can not be said enough: there is so much riding on the GA Senate runoffs. FM123 Dec 2020 #29

appalachiablue

(41,047 posts)
3. The US faces enormous challenges, this issue is way beyond
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 10:59 AM
Dec 2020

the scope of most people's corporate news intake.

rso

(2,261 posts)
5. Scotus
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 11:02 AM
Dec 2020

We’re going to need more than a 50/50 Senate if we want to change the rules to pack the Court, as Joe Manchin has already ruled out voting for changing the rules. Looks like 2022 will be our earliest opportunity, unless a Republican Senator in a State where there is a Democratic Governor dies or resigns. But of course, a 50/50 Senate, with VP Harris breaking ties would be immensely beneficial for many other Biden initiatives which do not include changing the rules.

Lasher

(27,497 posts)
25. Manchin is one of my 2 senators.
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 03:28 PM
Dec 2020

When he was first elected to the Senate in 2010, and while the rules there were still being deliberated, I begged him to do what he could to eliminate the filibuster. I argued that Republicans were going to rescind this tradition as soon as they regained control there. This being the case, as it turned out to be, it was foolish for Senate Democrats to be under this constraint while a future GOP Senate would not be.

I received a form "fuck you" reply, paid for by taxpayers.

Like a number of other US Senators, Joe loves the power he enjoys there. Since the filibuster is one form of that, he is not willing to let it go. But being more relevant, he is trying to figure out how he could ride the Trump Train to victory in a state that's turned into a bunch of Nazis.

ETA: The Senate rules don't have to be changed, since only a simple majority is needed to conform a SCOTUS nominee - thanks to McConnell.

rso

(2,261 posts)
27. Manchin
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 04:16 PM
Dec 2020

Yes, only a simple majority is needed now to approve a nominee, but in order to pack SCOTUS by increasing its size, a rule change would be required.

Mister Ed

(5,896 posts)
6. K&R, and thank you. But please, please, people: stop saying Biden needs to "pack the courts"!
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 11:21 AM
Dec 2020

The GOP already has packed the courts, with right-wing activist judges.

Good Dog in Heaven, our messaging is just awful sometimes.



Lasher

(27,497 posts)
9. I would like to know if you have a better way to describe this critical need.
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 11:51 AM
Dec 2020

Or if you have a better solution.

Mister Ed

(5,896 posts)
12. "Balance the courts"? "Court reform?" Almost any label for this critical need would be better.
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 12:21 PM
Dec 2020

Last edited Wed Dec 2, 2020, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)

"Packing the courts" sounds nefarious, corrupt, and underhanded. And indeed, the Republican packing of the courts has been nefarious, corrupt, and underhanded. But they're too clever with their labeling to go out in front of the public and declare that they're busy "packing the courts".

Now that they have so thoroughly packed the courts, we'd be awfully foolish to describe any corrective measures we take as an initiative to "pack the courts". That sounds to voters like a corrupt, unethical power grab when in reality it's an effort to undo a corrupt, unethical power grab.

As a footnote, please understand that this is not a plea to you personally, but to Democrats everywhere. We have got to do better with our framing.

P.S. On edit: I think "Unpack the courts" may be the simplest and best phrase to use.

Harker

(13,870 posts)
15. That's a sound reply.
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 01:10 PM
Dec 2020

You're absolutely right, and have presented some good alternatives.

"Packing the courts" sounds much like "stuffing the ballot box."

Lasher

(27,497 posts)
23. You are right, we've got to do better with our messaging.
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 02:23 PM
Dec 2020

We should be able to improve on that messaging unless Biden goes full blown kumbaya on us - which I think he will.

Maybe balance the courts would be a better battle cry. But if you believe one word of the linked Slate article, then you will know this as an affront to most of the things we should cherish as Democrats. A counterattack is essential.

Mister Ed

(5,896 posts)
24. You're so right. A counterattack is absolutely essential.
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 02:41 PM
Dec 2020

You can't make nice with an opponent whose only goal is to destroy you. And that is the goal of Mitch McConnell's senate.

Thanks again for bringing this important information to the attention of DU'ers. Otherwise, this sort of sneak attack on Biden's presidential powers could easily fly under the radar. The right-wing activist judges on the court want an all-powerful, "unitary executive" sort of presidency when a Republican holds the office, and want extremely limited presidential powers when a Democrat is voted in.

mjvpi

(1,384 posts)
19. Unpack the courts.
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 01:34 PM
Dec 2020

The Republicans have packed the courts, most notably by Trump, over the last 40 years. They are still way ahead of the game. They have been spending heavily on stage AG races as part of the same strategy.

malthaussen

(17,065 posts)
7. Yes, yes! This is what the GOP really want...
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 11:25 AM
Dec 2020

... they long for the Cuyahoga to burn again. Abortion? Who really cares how many people flush their fetuses? That's just a grift they've been running for a long time to get people to vote for them, so they can enact their real agenda, which they have been doing all through Mr Trump's Administration. Deregulate industry and rape what is left of the Commons, so corporations can make more of that sweet, sweet money.

-- Mal

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
26. Per Trump/McConnell rules, time to ignore the Supreme Court.
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 03:39 PM
Dec 2020

They have been damaged and corrupted to the point where the nation is endangered by their recklessness.

They have no army. Fuck 'em.

jalan48

(13,797 posts)
13. This reminded me of Wisconsin as well. If you lose the election you restrict the powers of the
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 12:41 PM
Dec 2020

incoming Governor or President in this case.

jmowreader

(50,447 posts)
20. They didn't forget
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 01:37 PM
Dec 2020

But it’s only applicable to Republican presidents.

We are at the point where getting rid of political parties and going to direct federal election funding is the only thing that makes sense.

Baked Potato

(7,733 posts)
16. Trump gave them a taste of government run by CEOs
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 01:22 PM
Dec 2020

Republicans are elected to control money and only trust others like themselves who make every decision on how the bottom line is affected. Everything else that happens is collateral happenstance to the action of generating profit.

PatrickforO

(14,514 posts)
17. Leave it to Republicans. Every single time a Democrat wants
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 01:28 PM
Dec 2020

to use tax dollars we pay into our government, supposedly that is 'of, by and for,' the people, for programs that actually benefit us, a Republican comes along and throws a wrench in it.

Every.

Single.

Time.

lastlib

(22,978 posts)
18. An even better solution to the court problem:
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 01:31 PM
Dec 2020

1) Create a National Court of Appeals. (pack it with 25 good young progressives.) All appeals from circuit courts go here.

2) Strip SCOTUS of all appellate jurisdiction (yes, Congress can do this.) Leave it with only its constitutional original jurisdiction. All appeals wil go to the national court of appeals.

Right-wing Scotus is effectively out of the picture--Clarence PubicHair gets all the nap-time he wants, and BeerBoy Kav can stay drunk and disorderly all the time. Problems solved.

3825-87867

(827 posts)
21. INstead of "packing the court", how about evening it out?
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 01:50 PM
Dec 2020

Equal number of justices would force either side to compromise at times. If they don't, the case goes back.

Ideas?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The Supreme Court Wants t...