I think Barrett is a fucking slug, but as far as I’ve observed she genuinely wants to side on the side of the country. She’s just a woman surrounded by men appointed by a fucking narcissistic fascist, so sometimes voting is needed for her survival? Maybe?
I agree for the most part with what you’re saying. I disagree with her politics, but she usually doesn’t let her personal ideology, religion, or political affiliations get in the way of doing her job as a supreme court justice where she’s supposed to be impartial in interpreting the law as it’s written. She’s not a sycophant like some of her colleagues
This isn’t the first time she’s sided with the constitution over the maga agenda. Her record isn’t spotless, but it’s not as irredeemably tainted as some of the others.
They’re concerned about the precedent set if they allow taxation to be included as part of regulatory powers. If they allowed this, then precedent is set for the next Dem president to come in and just start taxing companies that don’t align with their policy goals. So something like taxing carbon emissions no longer needs Congressional approval.
For anyone wondering, the three “justices” who sided with trump were Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito.
No surprises there. If anything, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett ruling against him is the surprise. It’s a win for constitutional rule of law.
I think Barrett is a fucking slug, but as far as I’ve observed she genuinely wants to side on the side of the country. She’s just a woman surrounded by men appointed by a fucking narcissistic fascist, so sometimes voting is needed for her survival? Maybe?
I agree for the most part with what you’re saying. I disagree with her politics, but she usually doesn’t let her personal ideology, religion, or political affiliations get in the way of doing her job as a supreme court justice where she’s supposed to be impartial in interpreting the law as it’s written. She’s not a sycophant like some of her colleagues
This isn’t the first time she’s sided with the constitution over the maga agenda. Her record isn’t spotless, but it’s not as irredeemably tainted as some of the others.
I think what you said is a much better way of saying what I wanted to. Thanks.
They’re concerned about the precedent set if they allow taxation to be included as part of regulatory powers. If they allowed this, then precedent is set for the next Dem president to come in and just start taxing companies that don’t align with their policy goals. So something like taxing carbon emissions no longer needs Congressional approval.
True. Also, giving tax powers to a “unitary executive” is literally taxation without representation.
There’s a reason it’s in the purview of congress.