XPost: alt.politics.republicans, sac.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: someone@outlook.com   
      
   WASHINGTON — Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch pulled no punches in taking   
   aim at his colleagues on the Supreme Court for a lack of consistency in   
   approaching broad assertions of presidential power made by Joe Biden and   
   Donald Trump.   
      
   Gorsuch was part of the 6-3 majority that struck down most of Trump’s   
   tariffs on Friday, but he wrote a separate 46-page opinion that chided   
   several of his fellow justices over how they approached the case.   
      
   His colleagues were effectively applying the same Supreme Court precedent   
   differently under Trump than they did under Biden, he argued, writing: “It   
   is an interesting turn of events.”   
      
   His invective focused on a theory known as the “major questions doctrine,”   
   which adherents say bars sweeping presidential action not specifically   
   authorized by Congress. The conservative-majority court embraced the   
   doctrine while Biden was in office to strike down broad plans, such as his   
   effort to forgive student loan debt.   
      
   But in ruling against Trump on tariffs Friday, the conservative majority   
   splintered. Gorsuch, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John   
   Roberts were in the majority, finding in part that Trump’s tariffs needed   
   to go through Congress. Three others, Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett   
   Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, dissented.   
      
   “It shows you how much internal dissension there is on the Supreme Court   
   right now,” said Robin Effron, a professor at Fordham University School of   
   Law.   
      
   Roberts’ 21-page majority opinion reads as if he hoped it would attract   
   nine votes, she added, but instead it was a “huge internal fail.”   
      
   Even some of the justices who agreed with the outcome did not sign on to   
   the part of Roberts’ opinion that sought to adopt the major questions   
   doctrine in curbing Trump’s tariffs, raising questions about how it will   
   be applied in future cases.   
      
   While the court’s three liberals, who backed Biden and criticized the   
   major questions doctrine in past rulings, were in the majority against   
   Trump, they again did not embrace the theory.   
      
   Gorsuch, who has wholeheartedly supported the major questions doctrine,   
   pointed to his colleagues’ waffling on the issue in his opinion.   
      
   “Past critics of the major questions doctrine do not object to its   
   application in this case,” he said, in a reference to the liberal   
   justices.   
      
   “Still others who have joined major questions decisions in the past   
   dissent from today’s application of the doctrine,” he added, referring to   
   the dissenting conservatives.   
      
   Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett and liberal Justice Elena Kagan all felt the   
   need to respond to Gorsuch in their own opinions (which might be one   
   reason why the court took months to decide the case).   
      
   Kagan, for example, pushed back on the idea that she was quietly endorsing   
   the major questions theory, notwithstanding her former criticism.   
      
   “Given how strong his apparent desire for converts, I almost regret to   
   inform him that I am not one,” Kagan quipped in a footnote directed at   
   Gorsuch.   
      
   Jonathan Adler, a professor at William & Mary Law School, said Gorsuch’s   
   critique of Kagan had merit, saying it is “hard to square” her opinion on   
   Friday with her previous votes.   
      
   In one 2022 case in which the court ruled against Biden’s attempts to   
   tackle climate change, Kagan wrote that the major questions doctrine   
   seemed to “magically appear” when it suited the conservative majority.   
      
   But Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University’s law school who   
   joined the legal challenge to the tariffs, said the dissenting   
   conservatives were just as guilty of contradicting themselves. In his   
   opinion, Kavanaugh argued in part that the major questions doctrine does   
   not apply to tariffs because of foreign affairs considerations.   
      
   “It seems like they want to carve out this arbitrary exception to major   
   questions for tariffs even though it can’t be justified,” Somin said.   
      
   For Adler, the bigger picture is that whatever the legal approach the   
   court took, it ruled against Trump in a major case despite many on the   
   left fretting that would not happen.   
      
   “Whether we characterize this as major questions doctrine or not, it’s   
   very clear that the court thinks it is important to police the boundaries   
   of what powers Congress has given the executive branch,” he added. “There   
   were plenty of folks who didn’t think that would happen in cases involving   
   the Trump administration.”   
      
   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-tariff-case-supreme-court-   
   justices-bicker-over-treating-trump-and-biden-differently/ar-AA1WMI1s   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)