Decision by Supreme Court to effectively neuter the EPA will have far-reaching implications for other agencies, including the CDC, FDA, and CMS. These agencies have dedicated scientists with expertise making important decisions about public health, but also marketing authorization of drugs, diagnostics, and devices. Do they make mistakes? Yes. But is it good that they can work independently of Congress as experts on matters Congress has no expertise on? Yes. Now, they can no longer do so. The SC decision on the EPA will be used as precedent to prevent regulatory agencies from pursuing many impactful policies on everything from clean water to diagnostic testing development to instituting new standards of safety and efficacy for drugs, diagnostics, and devices. This is a major blow to public health in America.
When I lived in Britain – was attending Oxford University – I remember having several conversations about the SC. Professors remarked that it’s “odd” that in America judges can be labeled “conservative” or “liberal.” It’s nearly impossible to know a judge’s – certainly higher court – political leanings. During the vetting and appointment process – always by fellow judges! – it’s ensured that no-one in a position of judicial authority is ideological in his or her decisions. Similarly, my ex-wife in the Netherlands – currently a high court appeals judge – says that judges in the Netherlands can’t be characterized as “conservative” or “liberal.” They may not reveal their political leanings if they have them. Ever, in any way, shape or form. And, one can hardly ever infer from their court decisions what their ideological inclination is.
How very different our system is. Ours is through and through political. And that’s a shame.
Meant to say in Britain it’s nearly impossible to know a judges’s …
Comments are interesting. So it all boils down to $$ vs life and $$ win.
Back in 1973, Roger Waters had something to say about the current situation in the US:
The lunatic is in the hall
The lunatics are in my hall
The paper holds their folded faces to the floor
And every day, the paperboy brings more
Interesting. I think of the early to mid 80s as the biggest slide so am surprised to see 73
This is really written from a UK perspective, since it is from Pink Floyd. Current news in the US just brought this to my mind – that and my recent efforts to play the song on my guitar.
Ahhh makes sense now.
Five of six justices were appointed by presidents who didn’t receive the popular vote. Two of them were accused of sexual misconduct. One has a wife actively supporting and encouraging a coup. We really are in a free fall.
I’m also not happy about this. But, I think the politicization of the SC begins with political – presidential – appointments. I think this is outrageous, quite frankly. Our degree of politicization of the judicial system is unique. Some of our judges are politicians. They get elected, which is truly absurd. Others, like Thomas and Barrett, but also Sotomayor, appear at conservative and liberal conferences, respectively. At conservative conferences, for example, Thomas openly talks about the kinds of judges and lawyers he likes; and it’s always a political statement. How this is allowed is beyond me, and beyond the comprehension of folks like my ex-wife (high court judge in the Netherlands), who told me she has to conceal every political leaning she may have from the public eye, otherwise she will be terminated. Even saying, for example, that one is an “originalist” would be taken as a political statement, and not an objective/neutral stance.
I could not agree more. I honestly don’t know what the answer is. I remember back in the day, business folks even in this country did not advertise political affiliations. I understand it is not close to the same.
73 was when watergate surfaced. But at that point bin our history, the majority of Nixon supporters were appalled and insisted on the truth. There was still a mindset of country over party.
SClarke, 1973 was indeed a big year in U.S. politics, as we learned about Watergate. But, Watergate itself wasn’t unique, at least not in terms of government scandals worldwide. Other nations have had and have major scandals. What’s unique is the politicization of everything in the U.S.: From the ways in which our SC justices are appointed, to public health, to the environment. Everything is value-laden. Both sides are guilty of this, by the way. But, it’s taken an even more ominous turn in recent years, as the right tries to turn back the clock many decades or even a century or two on many issues.
The Supreme Court does NOT represent the U.S. population on almost any decision it has taken. Yet, these un-elected, extraordinarily political justices – they all are, in my opinion – determine our fate. They’re effectively legislating from the bench. That’s crazy. A liberal activist court is a bad thing, to be sure. But, a conservative – well, far-right – activist court is bad, too.
I find it amusing how fired up people get about the Supreme Court. They are not supposed to follow popular opinion, they are to look at the application of the law. Roe v Wade is obviously about abortion, but it also about who has the power to determine various rules, the states or the federal government…they returned that power back to the states…how extreme! What’s ironic is that concentrating power with a central authority is more risky in terms of outcomes…if by chance a very conservative president and congress outlaw abortion, then what?…giving power to the states better protects from this outcome…abortion aside I prefer states and local jurisdictions to rule themselves….Massachusetts is different than Alabama and Montana and that’s ok, they should not all be governed the same on most matters…it’s also ok to disagree, there is far too much absolutism these days.
C-19
7-1
ready
Comments are closed.
Your no-hype southeastern New England weather blog!
Thanks TK.
Decision by Supreme Court to effectively neuter the EPA will have far-reaching implications for other agencies, including the CDC, FDA, and CMS. These agencies have dedicated scientists with expertise making important decisions about public health, but also marketing authorization of drugs, diagnostics, and devices. Do they make mistakes? Yes. But is it good that they can work independently of Congress as experts on matters Congress has no expertise on? Yes. Now, they can no longer do so. The SC decision on the EPA will be used as precedent to prevent regulatory agencies from pursuing many impactful policies on everything from clean water to diagnostic testing development to instituting new standards of safety and efficacy for drugs, diagnostics, and devices. This is a major blow to public health in America.
When I lived in Britain – was attending Oxford University – I remember having several conversations about the SC. Professors remarked that it’s “odd” that in America judges can be labeled “conservative” or “liberal.” It’s nearly impossible to know a judge’s – certainly higher court – political leanings. During the vetting and appointment process – always by fellow judges! – it’s ensured that no-one in a position of judicial authority is ideological in his or her decisions. Similarly, my ex-wife in the Netherlands – currently a high court appeals judge – says that judges in the Netherlands can’t be characterized as “conservative” or “liberal.” They may not reveal their political leanings if they have them. Ever, in any way, shape or form. And, one can hardly ever infer from their court decisions what their ideological inclination is.
How very different our system is. Ours is through and through political. And that’s a shame.
Meant to say in Britain it’s nearly impossible to know a judges’s …
Good grief. I have not seen anything on the EPA.
I just looked. Heaven help us.
Covid-19 hospital admissions in the U.S. now rising at a much steeper slope (crap): https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1542540425277321218
Comments are interesting. So it all boils down to $$ vs life and $$ win.
Back in 1973, Roger Waters had something to say about the current situation in the US:
The lunatic is in the hall
The lunatics are in my hall
The paper holds their folded faces to the floor
And every day, the paperboy brings more
Interesting. I think of the early to mid 80s as the biggest slide so am surprised to see 73
This is really written from a UK perspective, since it is from Pink Floyd. Current news in the US just brought this to my mind – that and my recent efforts to play the song on my guitar.
Ahhh makes sense now.
Five of six justices were appointed by presidents who didn’t receive the popular vote. Two of them were accused of sexual misconduct. One has a wife actively supporting and encouraging a coup. We really are in a free fall.
I’m also not happy about this. But, I think the politicization of the SC begins with political – presidential – appointments. I think this is outrageous, quite frankly. Our degree of politicization of the judicial system is unique. Some of our judges are politicians. They get elected, which is truly absurd. Others, like Thomas and Barrett, but also Sotomayor, appear at conservative and liberal conferences, respectively. At conservative conferences, for example, Thomas openly talks about the kinds of judges and lawyers he likes; and it’s always a political statement. How this is allowed is beyond me, and beyond the comprehension of folks like my ex-wife (high court judge in the Netherlands), who told me she has to conceal every political leaning she may have from the public eye, otherwise she will be terminated. Even saying, for example, that one is an “originalist” would be taken as a political statement, and not an objective/neutral stance.
I could not agree more. I honestly don’t know what the answer is. I remember back in the day, business folks even in this country did not advertise political affiliations. I understand it is not close to the same.
73 was when watergate surfaced. But at that point bin our history, the majority of Nixon supporters were appalled and insisted on the truth. There was still a mindset of country over party.
SClarke, 1973 was indeed a big year in U.S. politics, as we learned about Watergate. But, Watergate itself wasn’t unique, at least not in terms of government scandals worldwide. Other nations have had and have major scandals. What’s unique is the politicization of everything in the U.S.: From the ways in which our SC justices are appointed, to public health, to the environment. Everything is value-laden. Both sides are guilty of this, by the way. But, it’s taken an even more ominous turn in recent years, as the right tries to turn back the clock many decades or even a century or two on many issues.
The Supreme Court does NOT represent the U.S. population on almost any decision it has taken. Yet, these un-elected, extraordinarily political justices – they all are, in my opinion – determine our fate. They’re effectively legislating from the bench. That’s crazy. A liberal activist court is a bad thing, to be sure. But, a conservative – well, far-right – activist court is bad, too.
I find it amusing how fired up people get about the Supreme Court. They are not supposed to follow popular opinion, they are to look at the application of the law. Roe v Wade is obviously about abortion, but it also about who has the power to determine various rules, the states or the federal government…they returned that power back to the states…how extreme! What’s ironic is that concentrating power with a central authority is more risky in terms of outcomes…if by chance a very conservative president and congress outlaw abortion, then what?…giving power to the states better protects from this outcome…abortion aside I prefer states and local jurisdictions to rule themselves….Massachusetts is different than Alabama and Montana and that’s ok, they should not all be governed the same on most matters…it’s also ok to disagree, there is far too much absolutism these days.
C-19
7-1
ready