Posted on 06/28/2019 9:14:07 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
he Supreme Courts 5-to-4 ruling on Department of Commerce v. New York is being characterized as nothing more serious than a temporary setback regarding President Trumps wish to reinstate a citizenship question in the 2020 U.S. Census; the administration is expected to whip up a new rationale that the high court wont consider contrived and get the question in.
Unfortunately it is far worse than that, and Chief Justice John Roberts is giving further sign that he is yet another unpleasant surprise in GOP appointments to the highest level of the Judicial Branch, following in the footsteps of David Souter (Bush 41), Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day OConnor (Reagan), and John Paul Stevens (Ford).
The Courts holding reflects an unprecedented departure from our deferential review of discretionary agency decisions, Justice Clarence Thomas warns in his dissent, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. And, if taken seriously as a rule of decision, this holding would transform administrative law the Court has opened a Pandoras box, Thomas declared.
Motivated by politics and ideology, lawyers would challenge all sorts of Executive Branch decisions with accusations of pretext, deceit, and illicit motives leading to an endless morass of discovery and policy disputes, Thomas cautions. Now that the Court has opened up this avenue of attack, opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them. Moreover, even if the effort to invalidate the action is ultimately unsuccessful, the Courts decision enables partisans to use the courts to harangue executive officers through depositions, discovery, delay, and distraction.
(Excerpt) Read more at issuesinsights.com ...
I think “arbitrary and capricious” would imply contrary to the original intent of Congress, or contrary to simple reason or clear evidence. Otherwise, one person’s “carefully considered” could always be another’s “arbitrary and capricious”, and the law would be pointless, a matter of the court’s whim. The Chief Justice seems to be playing that game.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.