• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    131 year ago

    This was not stopping legislation but instead executive action not backed up by legislation. Wouldn’t the next logical step be to actually pass a law?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      It was judicial action to stop legal executive action backed up by legislation. Unless you think Missouri actually had standing and the phrase “waive or modify” doesn’t mean what it clearly means.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      It is stopping legislation, the Heroes Act specifically. Congress acted to give the Executive branch this power, the Executive branch acted well within that scope, and SCOTUS struck it down by ignoring the plain text of the statute.

    • @winterayars
      link
      91 year ago

      They’ll just rule against the law, too. That said, the next step is another executive order (“taking into account the ruling, here’s a new EA”) and a law.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -7
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Congress does have the power to write into their laws that they are not eligible for judicial review… but that would give the game away if they actually used that power, they wouldn’t be able to hand-wring and say ‘oh we want to but we can’t because the Supreme Court, etc…’

        Dems like to set up their lore progressive bills to fail, but it’s never their fault that way they can fund raise on all the ‘hard work they’re doing for the people’ and they just ‘need to beat the mean-bad-not-good republicans so you should definitely VOTE for the dems every time!’

        At least the republicans don’t really hide that they aren’t out to help regular Americans? They all suck equally when they’re owned by corporate lobbyists so whatever I guess 🤷🏻‍♀️

        • @winterayars
          link
          11 year ago

          I dunno about not eligible for judicial review, but the rest of this is dead on.