Over the past 10 days or so, a few major Supreme Court decisions were passed down. These were simultaneously not as big of a deal as some people will have you believe and a much bigger deal that some people will have you believe. The internet is fun like that. I, true to form, am somewhere down the middle. The true impact of these decisions is unclear, and a lot depends on what happens in the next few elections.
But first the disclaimers. I am an attorney. That does not mean any of this is legal advice. More importantly, I do mergers and acquisitions. Recently, I had to do a little case law research. I had to create a new Westlaw account because I hadn’t created one since joining my new firm two years ago. In other words, while I understand how to think like a lawyer, none of this is in my wheelhouse. So, take this all with a pinch of salt.
First, let’s start with some optimism – the reason these cases may not be that big of a deal. Overturning the Chevron deference is absolutely important to administrative law and appropriate regulations. However, I understand there is still some level of deference given to experts, even if it’s not the same level of deference in Chevron. Similarly, in the Trump immunity case, there are still ways other than the threat of post-presidency prosecution to prevent a regal presidency.
That is not to make light of the potential harms. Chevron deference allowed experts to promulgate regulations which were based on expert opinion and not a judge’s often-poor understanding of science. As a lawyer, I can confidently say that very few of us are experts in anything to do with hard science, or, for that matter, anything that remotely involves math. In fact, I have a family member who is a judge and while they are, I’m sure, a brilliant jurist, I would not trust them with a middle school science project, let alone knowing the difference between ethyl and methyl.
And the idea that a president should be immune from prosecution, even if only for official acts, opens doors for corruption. More importantly, it destroys the founding notion that every man is equal in the eyes of the law. I would be remiss to not note that, at that point, it was only white men who that equality applied to, but we reaffirmed and extended that concept, even if only in writing, via amendments.
I will not pretend that the potential policy effects are severe, but the true story here is the Supreme Court signaling its willingness to act as a rubber stamp for a conservative president. Real people don’t want that. Sure, the Court’s decisions were defended online, mostly by FirstNameRandomNumbers accounts on Twitter (can’t stop me Elon!), but I think real people were unhappy with these decisions. Real people like clean drinking water. Real people like knowing what is in their food and their medicine. Real people understand that the law should apply to everyone. And real people don’t want their Supreme Court justices bought and sold or flying flags of insurrection.
Unfortunately, that’s the Supreme Court we have now. Elections matter, and elections resulted in Trump appointing three justices, all of whom determined Trump is immune from some prosecution. Interesting. Real people see that conflict of interest. But elections matter. And the next election matters a lot. Two justices are over 70. Two more are just about there. The next president may have the chance to replace two conservative justices. Replacing them with two liberals flips the balance of the court. Replacing them with two conservatives cements the conservative tilt, likely for decades.
This election matters. And the only way to prevent a conservative majority on the Supreme Court and all the potential fascism that goes along with it is for real people to vote for Democrats. That’s the only way to change the court. Real people, fighting for real change. Real people, real change. That’s what you get with the Democrats.
But first the disclaimers. I am an attorney. That does not mean any of this is legal advice. More importantly, I do mergers and acquisitions. Recently, I had to do a little case law research. I had to create a new Westlaw account because I hadn’t created one since joining my new firm two years ago. In other words, while I understand how to think like a lawyer, none of this is in my wheelhouse. So, take this all with a pinch of salt.
First, let’s start with some optimism – the reason these cases may not be that big of a deal. Overturning the Chevron deference is absolutely important to administrative law and appropriate regulations. However, I understand there is still some level of deference given to experts, even if it’s not the same level of deference in Chevron. Similarly, in the Trump immunity case, there are still ways other than the threat of post-presidency prosecution to prevent a regal presidency.
That is not to make light of the potential harms. Chevron deference allowed experts to promulgate regulations which were based on expert opinion and not a judge’s often-poor understanding of science. As a lawyer, I can confidently say that very few of us are experts in anything to do with hard science, or, for that matter, anything that remotely involves math. In fact, I have a family member who is a judge and while they are, I’m sure, a brilliant jurist, I would not trust them with a middle school science project, let alone knowing the difference between ethyl and methyl.
And the idea that a president should be immune from prosecution, even if only for official acts, opens doors for corruption. More importantly, it destroys the founding notion that every man is equal in the eyes of the law. I would be remiss to not note that, at that point, it was only white men who that equality applied to, but we reaffirmed and extended that concept, even if only in writing, via amendments.
I will not pretend that the potential policy effects are severe, but the true story here is the Supreme Court signaling its willingness to act as a rubber stamp for a conservative president. Real people don’t want that. Sure, the Court’s decisions were defended online, mostly by FirstNameRandomNumbers accounts on Twitter (can’t stop me Elon!), but I think real people were unhappy with these decisions. Real people like clean drinking water. Real people like knowing what is in their food and their medicine. Real people understand that the law should apply to everyone. And real people don’t want their Supreme Court justices bought and sold or flying flags of insurrection.
Unfortunately, that’s the Supreme Court we have now. Elections matter, and elections resulted in Trump appointing three justices, all of whom determined Trump is immune from some prosecution. Interesting. Real people see that conflict of interest. But elections matter. And the next election matters a lot. Two justices are over 70. Two more are just about there. The next president may have the chance to replace two conservative justices. Replacing them with two liberals flips the balance of the court. Replacing them with two conservatives cements the conservative tilt, likely for decades.
This election matters. And the only way to prevent a conservative majority on the Supreme Court and all the potential fascism that goes along with it is for real people to vote for Democrats. That’s the only way to change the court. Real people, fighting for real change. Real people, real change. That’s what you get with the Democrats.