Also must add, as a law nerd, this kind of "observation" really grinds my gears: '“The case was notable because it created unusual alliances,” the New York Times points out.' Of course it's true that there are real ideological divisions in the Supreme Court. But it's a gross oversimplification to assume those divisions will always overtly apply to the decision of any given case, or that ideology necessarily drives legal analysis toward one result or the other. This particular case is a great example. (And, side note, it's downright laughable that any justice would feel personally beholden to side with the president who appointed them. The justices generally have an excellent grasp of separation of powers, and they know that their tenure will outlast the president as long as they are in good health and choose to stick around. You might be able to court favor with a justice, *cough Thomas cough*, but they're damn hard to bully.)
I think that’s fair, although I do think enough people do think the court always rules 6-3 and that justices align with presidents who pick them that it can still be worth reminding people that it usually doesn’t work that way. But, in any event, I actually don’t think the court’s internal ideological divisions is what the Times was noting there — it was actually referring to the fact that San Francisco was suing the EPA over an environmental regulation, which I *do* think is a fairly unexpected development worth noting considering most stereotypes about SF!
Very helpful Gabe and a bit of somewhat positive news in the a sea of negativity; a reminder that the government does continue to operate, although Congress back in the day, and I was pretty angry with the executive order against it. Thanks for continuing to keep us well informed.
Great update, thank you!
Also must add, as a law nerd, this kind of "observation" really grinds my gears: '“The case was notable because it created unusual alliances,” the New York Times points out.' Of course it's true that there are real ideological divisions in the Supreme Court. But it's a gross oversimplification to assume those divisions will always overtly apply to the decision of any given case, or that ideology necessarily drives legal analysis toward one result or the other. This particular case is a great example. (And, side note, it's downright laughable that any justice would feel personally beholden to side with the president who appointed them. The justices generally have an excellent grasp of separation of powers, and they know that their tenure will outlast the president as long as they are in good health and choose to stick around. You might be able to court favor with a justice, *cough Thomas cough*, but they're damn hard to bully.)
I think that’s fair, although I do think enough people do think the court always rules 6-3 and that justices align with presidents who pick them that it can still be worth reminding people that it usually doesn’t work that way. But, in any event, I actually don’t think the court’s internal ideological divisions is what the Times was noting there — it was actually referring to the fact that San Francisco was suing the EPA over an environmental regulation, which I *do* think is a fairly unexpected development worth noting considering most stereotypes about SF!
That's fair!
I greatly appreciate these updates simply because beneath all the shouting softer, adult voices are getting things done.
Very helpful Gabe and a bit of somewhat positive news in the a sea of negativity; a reminder that the government does continue to operate, although Congress back in the day, and I was pretty angry with the executive order against it. Thanks for continuing to keep us well informed.
Amy C Barrett might be my new heroine….
Can you explain why the President is opposed to the CHIPS act?
Why is the President opposed to the CHIPS act - I thought it brings manufacturing back to the United States?
Thanks for the update Gabe. Looking forward to your coverage of the upcoming fight to keep government open.
Gabe, thank you.
This was fantastic, Gabe, thank you.