The Supreme Court May Execute Steve Bannon's Plan to Destroy the Administrative State

Esquire ^ | Nov 1, 2021 | Charles P. Pierce

[BusterDog]

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard challenges to the draconian Texas anti-choice law, a proceeding that might well be the first tolling of the death knell for the reproductive freedom that ensued after the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. This is undoubtedly a momentous bit of business, especially in the context of how we came to this 6-3 conservative majority on the high bench. However, on Friday, when very few people were watching, the Court took another action that is equally terrifying. Remember when Steve Bannon was yammering about destroying “the administrative state”? Members of the Supreme Court do.

[BusterDog]

We'll see what happens.

[Campion]

"reproductive freedom"

Funny way to describe a non-reproductive, homicidal free-for-all.

[nesnah]

This, if decided correctly, would be the biggest positive decision in 100 years.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Perverted, anyway.

[BusterDog]

“This, if decided correctly, would be the biggest positive decision in 100 years.”

*****

We may have already passed the point of no return on ever limiting fed gov power without a reconstitution of the whole shebang. Would be great to find out we have not.

[Guenevere]

Please!

[Jim Noble]

Would be great to find out we have not

It would be - but them making a decision that the Executive Branch will not enforce and which Congress will immediately legislate against, impeaching Associate Justices if necessary, will not accomplish what you seek.

[Paladin2]

“The Supreme Court May Execute Steve Bannon......”

[dblshot]

As Justice Kagan wrote, if the law in Gundy is unconstitutional, then “most of government is unconstitutional.”
Indeed it is. The deal was supposed to be people would vote for someone to represent their interests and if they didn't they could be voted out. Not so with a bunch of entrenched bureaucrats many covered by rules that preclude firing them who make rules that increase their power base. One could say that while Congress dithers the executive branch makes new rules at a rate that no citizen can possibly keep up with. As we have seen these aparchiks can even stimy a duly elected president.

[NewJerseyJoe]

P4L

[Lurker]

“As Justice Kagan wrote, if the law in Gundy is unconstitutional, then “most of government is unconstitutional.”

See? She does get it.

L

[Flavious_Maximus]

and then Charles P. Pierce will be next.

[Still Thinking]

As Justice Kagan wrote, if the law in Gundy is unconstitutional, then “most of government is unconstitutional.”

Yeah.....? And?

[higgmeister]

I liked this part.

As Justice Kagan wrote, if the law in Gundy is unconstitutional, then “most of government is unconstitutional.”

To which our carefully engineered 6-3 Supreme Court majority replies, “And your point is?”

[Machavelli]

A 6 to 3 “conservative court”? That is a joke. Justice Kagan is a disgrace to ALL women. Roberts is a pathetic joke. It is past time for an age limit on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, at this time the only authentic “American” on that court is Justice Clarence Thomas.

[Drago]

Earlier “Gundy” case ruling (Gorsuch wanted a “re-visit”, thus ongoing at SCOTUS):

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/17-6086.html

[yoe]

""reproductive freedom"....feeds a hidden industry that is for the very wealthy or Socialized Medicine...Baby Parts.

[Carl Vehse]

"draconian Texas anti-choice law"

Leftist mega-gaslighting.

[Mouton]

Want to really get scared, read the comments on the Esquire article. Bunch of Nazis.

The way they think the constitution set out 3 branches and one of them sets out a supreme branch over them, the administrative branch.

[Nateman]

OMG! You mean nameless , faceless, unaccountable beaureacrats can no longer make up law for the entire nation? *Gasp*! It must be the end times! /S