The Supreme Court Destroyed The Government While You Weren't Looking

Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.

GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers

[merdufer]

I'm so glad America has the separation of powers into three branches, the King, the King's cronies, and the jesters.

[Ford_prefect_]

Remember when these idiots were shouting "facts don't care about your feelings"? Well now facts are subject to their feelings only. This is horrific

[RobertSwick]

The fact that this ruling came immediately after the court stated that "gratuities" to public officials were not considered bribes says all we need to know about the reason for the decision.

[KingBobXVI]

As a constitutional lawyer, at what point do you start telling your clients "bribe the judge" as legal advice? I mean, it's the M.O. of this court now.
Oh, sorry, I mean "provide gratuities".

[jonathanadams]

At last the trifecta is complete! The law can finally be written by idiots, interpreted by idiots, and enforced by idiots.

[PeacefulZealot]

Who could’ve imagined unchallengeable, unelected lifetime appointments would be a problem?!

[justindoud]

Just have to point out the naked hypocrisy of the court here.

Their argument when they ruled on presidential immunity was that if a president had to be concerned in anyway about criminal prosecution, it would excessively hamper their ability to perform their duties as president. Such a vulnerability would make it so that the president would not be vigorous and energetic in accordance with the framers’ vision, and would undermine the separation of powers, or so they argued.

But when it comes to the ability of the executive to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress, the court here seems to think it appropriate that the executive branch be endlessly challenged and re-challenged on it’s implementation of the law.

It’s very hard not to view the court as an openly activist institution at this point.

[yiqingtan]

As a lawyer, I truly feel this is dystopian. I tell my clients all the time that the legality of something is just one side of the issue. There's the practical, the moral, the financial, the spiritual, and especially in this instance, the scientific aspect of matters. The law isn't everything nor it is meant to be.

[nubbs]

We went from “leave it to the experts” to “leave it to the people uniquely unqualified to be making these decisions.

[JohnSmith-qmgo]

I'm in my 70s. I can remember when OSHA was pretty much ignored. I started working in factories at 15 during the summer when school was out. I was big for my age and strong and companies didn't really care if you were a little under the age limit because nobody was going to look. I remember working in a freon canning factory one summer. I later learned someone was killed there every year in an industrial accident. I could see why. Belts & gears didn't have covers, It wasn't too many years after that that OSHA started flexing their muscle. I wonder how many lives would have been saved, how many serious injuries would have been prevented if OSHA had been stronger sooner. BTW true to form a person got killed that summer. I soo appreciate what OSHA has done for the worker. If you're sitting in an office where the most serious thing that can happen to you is a paper cut, you won't appreciate this comment, but if you are older, workie in a factory, & remember what it was like before OSHA you will agree.. Ever since Citizens United the Extreme Court has been trying to burn down our democracy & take away the little guy's rights.

[randallmakhanya]

seeing the USA sink like this is surreal... What the f is going on over there?

[pedrostormrage]

15:36 "At which point conservatives got a whole lot less concerned about stare decisis" That's one of the biggest ironies I've ever seen: if you're not following stare decisis ("standing by things decided"), then you're going against the status quo (you're not "conserving" anything).

[bm]

Choosing politics over science is how we as a species die.

[navinvent]

There are 1.6 Billion organic compounds possible, EPA bans 80, 000 compounds from the environment. Imagine requiring the congress to debate and approve bans of all of these one by one or by narrow group, instead of by scientific principles.

[ahben]

Now get the justices to think hydrogen oxide is a harmful substance, claim that the government putting it in pipes is a bad thing and enjoy the show from there

[jencraw]

Everytime I see Reagan’s name brought up I know shit is about to go some horrible direction :(

[jatsko]

Just remember, the people complaining the loudest about how government doesn't work are also the ones doing the most to break it even more, because that is what they really want.

[chrisbeer]

"Who are you?"

"The 2024 Supreme Court decision that pretty much destroys government"

"Do you have any idea how little that narrows it down?"

[googleuser]

From a focused 2A perspective, this could lead to judges deciding what counts as what kind of firearm based on their own judgement rather than a technical definition correct?

[Spoon]

Ah, yes. The *SMALL GOVERNMENT PARTY* back at it again!