Great interview. Thanks. I concur with Zack that Viramontes/Grant (the AR15 cases) are going to finally answer the "hardware/what" question. Hemani pretty much answered the "who" question. Wolford answered a lot of the "where" questions, albeit not completely. The "what" questions are due.
David, I think that you and Zach are too kind to the conservative majority on SCOTUS. They have, in my opinion, proven themselves to be a bunch of hypocritical partisan hacks, over and over again. So, there' s President Biden trying to exercise executive power via his agencies, and they invent, out of whole cloth, the major questions doctrine to shut him down. But, along comes President Trump, and they issue the most anti-textual decision possible to grant him blanket immunity. After all, the Presidential Oath is unambiguous and it is included in the Constitution. So, a decision that is at odds with that is hard to square with textualism.
Of course they ruled in favor of Cook: They came to a big cliff, looked over the edge, and got scared. The value of the U.S. dollar is based on the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government as required by the Constitution. It is fiat money, so there is nothing else backing up its value. What is it that the dollar stakeholders "trust" the U.S. to do? Roughly speaking, they trust the government to preserve Fed independence, and thus, non-political control of the money supply. So, ruling against Cook would likely have plunged the U.S., and the rest of the world, into a monetary crisis.
Many rules for deciding cases are "invented [,] out of whole cloth"; e.g., the incorporation doctrine, exclusionary rule. three-tiered equal protection analysis, evolving standards of decency, dormant commerce clause, and substantive due process, among others. The major questions doctrine is no more "made up" than these. That theories were made up was the basis for much of the criticism of the Warren court.
The Cook case is decided on a very narrow basis hoping the problem will go away. (An example of Roberts' "clever" writing.) In any event, it was the three Democratic appointees who provided the majority for that case - not the conservative majority.
You're too modest on Mr. Shemtob's behalf, Mr. Lat. SCOTUSblog is indeed THE leading news outlet about the SCOTUS — and it's getting better.
Great interview. Thanks. I concur with Zack that Viramontes/Grant (the AR15 cases) are going to finally answer the "hardware/what" question. Hemani pretty much answered the "who" question. Wolford answered a lot of the "where" questions, albeit not completely. The "what" questions are due.
David, I think that you and Zach are too kind to the conservative majority on SCOTUS. They have, in my opinion, proven themselves to be a bunch of hypocritical partisan hacks, over and over again. So, there' s President Biden trying to exercise executive power via his agencies, and they invent, out of whole cloth, the major questions doctrine to shut him down. But, along comes President Trump, and they issue the most anti-textual decision possible to grant him blanket immunity. After all, the Presidential Oath is unambiguous and it is included in the Constitution. So, a decision that is at odds with that is hard to square with textualism.
Of course they ruled in favor of Cook: They came to a big cliff, looked over the edge, and got scared. The value of the U.S. dollar is based on the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government as required by the Constitution. It is fiat money, so there is nothing else backing up its value. What is it that the dollar stakeholders "trust" the U.S. to do? Roughly speaking, they trust the government to preserve Fed independence, and thus, non-political control of the money supply. So, ruling against Cook would likely have plunged the U.S., and the rest of the world, into a monetary crisis.
Many rules for deciding cases are "invented [,] out of whole cloth"; e.g., the incorporation doctrine, exclusionary rule. three-tiered equal protection analysis, evolving standards of decency, dormant commerce clause, and substantive due process, among others. The major questions doctrine is no more "made up" than these. That theories were made up was the basis for much of the criticism of the Warren court.
The Cook case is decided on a very narrow basis hoping the problem will go away. (An example of Roberts' "clever" writing.) In any event, it was the three Democratic appointees who provided the majority for that case - not the conservative majority.