## SCOTUS

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
Goose55
Minister to Monster Truckers
Posts: 11796
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:44 pm
Location: Southern Arizona, U.S.A.

### SCOTUS

"At present we're on the wrong side of the door. But all the pages of the New Testament are rustling with the rumor that it will not always be so." ~ C.S. Lewis

SlowToke
John Crosby's Friend
Posts: 9236
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:00 pm
Location: Cloverdale, IN
Contact:

### Re: SCOTUS

Thank the Lord!
Wayne Teipen
http://teipenpipes.com
"Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions." Proverbs 18:2

"Life is tough, and it's tougher when you're stupid." -- John Wayne

gaining_age
Ph.D. of LaTeX
Posts: 18649
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: sun soaked Arizona

### Re: SCOTUS

Justices always have their own sense and don't sit on lines of a board--- and this is a torque problem of which the equation is

$\vec{T_i}=\vec{r_i} \times \vec{F_i}$

where $\vec{r_i}$ is the direction from the fulcrum to the weight and $\vec{F_i}$ is the force due to gravity at the location. So fatter justice or justice farther from the fulcrum have greater torque.
Out of control odd rare old man (or possibly an hobbyist). -- Label by The Big R.
The 6s of 1st John:
2:6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus walked
3:6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning

TNLawPiper
1-800-LAW-DAWG
Posts: 19846
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

### Re: SCOTUS

gaining_age wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:50 pm
Justices always have their own sense and don't sit on lines of a board--- and this is a torque problem of which the equation is

$\vec{T_i}=\vec{r_i} \times \vec{F_i}$

where $\vec{r_i}$ is the direction from the fulcrum to the weight and $\vec{F_i}$ is the force due to gravity at the location. So fatter justice or justice farther from the fulcrum have greater torque.
RBG was a tiny lady, so her influence couldn’t have been that great, right?
Stat crux dum volvitur orbis.

gaining_age
Ph.D. of LaTeX
Posts: 18649
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: sun soaked Arizona

### Re: SCOTUS

TNLawPiper wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:21 pm
gaining_age wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:50 pm
Justices always have their own sense and don't sit on lines of a board--- and this is a torque problem of which the equation is

$\vec{T_i}=\vec{r_i} \times \vec{F_i}$

where $\vec{r_i}$ is the direction from the fulcrum to the weight and $\vec{F_i}$ is the force due to gravity at the location. So fatter justice or justice farther from the fulcrum have greater torque.
RBG was a tiny lady, so her influence couldn’t have been that great, right?
Depends upon the lever arm.

"Give me a lever and a place to stand and I will move the earth. Give me a fulcrum, and I shall move the world. Give me a firm spot on which to stand, and I shall move the earth. Give me an RBG on the teeter totter and I'll move the country" -- Archimedes (ok, he might or might not have said the last sentence)
Out of control odd rare old man (or possibly an hobbyist). -- Label by The Big R.
The 6s of 1st John:
2:6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus walked
3:6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning

DAN
Minister to Occupy Democrats
Posts: 6053
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:00 pm
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma

### Re: SCOTUS

Goose55 wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:34 pm
Until it's 9-0, there's work to do.
I don't always choose sig lines just to tick someone off, but when I do, it's on CPS.

hugodrax
Happy with JimVH
Posts: 23857
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

### Re: SCOTUS

Is the political forum broken?
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth
—Marcus Aurelius

non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam

gaining_age
Ph.D. of LaTeX
Posts: 18649
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: sun soaked Arizona

### Re: SCOTUS

hugodrax wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:33 pm
Is the political forum broken?
Looked like a physics problem to me...
Out of control odd rare old man (or possibly an hobbyist). -- Label by The Big R.
The 6s of 1st John:
2:6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus walked
3:6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning

gaining_age
Ph.D. of LaTeX
Posts: 18649
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: sun soaked Arizona

### Re: SCOTUS

Out of control odd rare old man (or possibly an hobbyist). -- Label by The Big R.
The 6s of 1st John:
2:6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus walked
3:6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning

hugodrax
Happy with JimVH
Posts: 23857
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

### Re: SCOTUS

gaining_age wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:48 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:33 pm
Is the political forum broken?
Looked like a physics problem to me...
Genuine audible laughter.
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth
—Marcus Aurelius

non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam

Stanley76
CPS Man-at-Arms
Posts: 3313
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 6:50 pm
Location: Pungo River NC

### Re: SCOTUS

Y'all think the SCOTUS is off balance now, wait till AFRS gets confirmed.

Goose55
Minister to Monster Truckers
Posts: 11796
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:44 pm
Location: Southern Arizona, U.S.A.

### Re: SCOTUS

hugodrax wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:33 pm
Is the political forum broken?
I didn't know there was one. If there is, should we move the thread there?
"At present we're on the wrong side of the door. But all the pages of the New Testament are rustling with the rumor that it will not always be so." ~ C.S. Lewis

hugodrax
Happy with JimVH
Posts: 23857
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

### Re: SCOTUS

Goose55 wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 6:38 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:33 pm
Is the political forum broken?
I didn't know there was one. If there is, should we move the thread there?
Doesn't matter to me, sir. I think we're both too smart to play around in that opt-in place.

Besides, this seems pretty apolitical.
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth
—Marcus Aurelius

non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam

JimVH
Lil Husk
Posts: 26993
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as soon as I could.
Contact:

### Re: SCOTUS

She kinda has a hot judge thing working.

How’s that for balance.
"The days that I keep my gratitude higher than my expectations, I have really good days." Ray Wylie Hubbard

"Your boos mean nothing. I see what you cheer." Kevin Sorbo

hugodrax
Happy with JimVH
Posts: 23857
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

### Re: SCOTUS

JimVH wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:10 pm
She kinda has a hot judge thing working.

How’s that for balance.
Fair.
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth
—Marcus Aurelius

non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam

DepartedLight
Archfairy of Carolinia
Posts: 31891
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Tobacco Fairy HQ, North Carolina

### Re: SCOTUS

Stanley76 wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:58 pm
Y'all think the SCOTUS is off balance now, wait till AFRS gets confirmed.

DL Jake

Don't you mean Mac Blowtorch? - Jocose

Goose55
Minister to Monster Truckers
Posts: 11796
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:44 pm
Location: Southern Arizona, U.S.A.

### Re: SCOTUS

JimVH wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:10 pm
She kinda has a hot judge thing working.

How’s that for balance.
Hot, eh? Are you saying she's a 48 year old cougar?
"At present we're on the wrong side of the door. But all the pages of the New Testament are rustling with the rumor that it will not always be so." ~ C.S. Lewis

durangopipe
The Goat Fairy
Posts: 9397
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:58 pm

### Re: SCOTUS

hugodrax wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:33 pm
Is the political forum broken?
Yes.
Oh, you meant here on CPS.

DepartedLight
Archfairy of Carolinia
Posts: 31891
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Tobacco Fairy HQ, North Carolina

### Re: SCOTUS

durangopipe wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:17 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:33 pm
Is the political forum broken?
Yes.
Oh, you meant here on CPS.
stop it
DL Jake

Don't you mean Mac Blowtorch? - Jocose

wosbald
Lonergan Fan Club President
Posts: 23433
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

### Re: SCOTUS

+JMJ+

Neil Gorsuch Supports an Originalist Theory That Would Destroy Modern Governance [In-Depth, Interview]

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch arrives at the U.S. Capitol ahead of the inauguration of President Joe Biden on Jan. 20. Pool/Getty Images

Just one problem: It’s bunk.

On Thursday, the Columbia Law Review published one of the most important and topical scholarly articles in recent memory, “Delegation at the Founding.” Its authors, Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley, put forth a sweeping argument: They assert that an ascendant legal theory championed by conservative originalists has no actual basis in history. That theory, called the nondelegation doctrine, holds that the Constitution puts strict limits on Congress’ ability to let the executive branch set rules and regulations. Congress, for instance, could not direct the Environmental Protection Agency to set air quality standards that “protect public health,” and let the agency decide what limits on pollution are necessary to meet that goal. Nondelegation doctrine has enormous consequences for the federal government’s ability to function, since Congress typically sets broad goals and directs agencies to figure out how to achieve them. The theory is supported by a majority of the current Supreme Court; in 2019, Justice Neil Gorsuch signaled his eagerness to apply the doctrine, and at least four other conservative justices have joined his crusade.

Gorsuch and his allies in academia insist that the men who wrote the Constitution believed in the nondelegation doctrine, giving the theory an originalist pedigree. Yet Mortenson and Bagley, both law professors at the University of Michigan and former Supreme Court clerks, have painstakingly debunked originalists’ claims of historical support for the doctrine. The publication of their article presents a grave challenge to conservative originalists like Gorsuch who purport to follow the evidence even when it leads to an outcome that clashes with their political preferences. As Mortenson and Bagley put it: “You can be an originalist or you can be committed to the nondelegation doctrine. But you can’t be both.”

On Thursday, I spoke with the authors about their paper and the response it has already provoked among academics with near-dogmatic faith in the doctrine they debunk. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

=========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Mark Joseph Stern: What is the nondelegation doctrine?

Julian Davis Mortenson: Nondelegation is a judicially created doctrine that has had exactly one year of actual existence, 1935, over the 2½ centuries of the American republic. It says, in essence, that only Congress can make rules that govern private conduct, and all administrative agencies can do is apply the rules and maybe fill in some small details about the rules in the course of doing their work.

[…]

You spent an enormous amount of time reviewing these originalist theories and assessing them in light of tens of thousands of pages of historical evidence. What did you find?

Bagley: When you talk about the founding era, there’s an awful lot to draw on because founders talked about their new Constitution all the time. If nondelegation was a thing, you should expect to find direct evidence of it. You’d expect it to arise in debates over laws that empower the president to act without much guidance from Congress. And when you look at those debates, it never crops up. It never shows up at all. And when you look at the practice before ratification, the founders delegated power all the time. It’s not a surprise that when they formed this new Constitution, they continued that pattern. If you take a hard look at the evidence people claim for the nondelegation doctrine, it falls apart in your hands. As a matter of historical inference, it can’t stand. History is not a game. It’s not infinitely flexible. You can’t read into it whatever you want.

[…]

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco