Justice Gorsuch fails to see the forest for the trees in LEARNING RESOURCES, INC. v. TRUMP

[johnwk]

While Justice Gorsuch in LEARNING RESOURCES, INC. v. TRUMP entertains much ado about the “major questions doctrine” and its asserted purpose “. . . to sustain a claim that Congress has granted them an extraordinary power, executive officials must identify clear authority for that power . . . “, as stated by Justice Gorsuch, there is a suspicious avoidance in the majority’s opinion to forthright acknowledge that a President who perceives a “national emergency” which triggers the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), is making a political observation and assessment, and one which Congress, and not our Supreme Court, is competent and authorized to judge under our system’s separation of powers, e.g., "…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess." _________ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

And if Congress should decide the President’s declared emergency is not legitimate, Congress specifically adopted a remedy which is found under statutory law, the 1985 adopted National Emergencies Act 50 U. S. C. §1622(a)(1) providing for a “joint resolution” to terminate a president’s emergency.

This function certainly is not within our Supreme Court members’ delegated authority to assess, and yet, the majority have decided to exercise our Legislature’s function in spite of Madison’s warning that ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [e.g. our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

Indeed, Justice Gorsuch in his long and rambling written opinion, fails to see the forest for the trees.

JWK

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

 

[Blaster]

Gorsuch needs to rule as a conservative.

 

[1srelluc]

Jeez, it could not be as "rambling" as that dog's breakfast you posted.

 

[task0778]

I don't see the problem with what Gorsuch is saying. Essentially he's saying that the Congress has the responsibility to terminate a president's declaration of an emergency under the National Emergency Act. Not the Courts, but Congress can and should do that. Whether they actually do it or not is beside the point, this is supposed to be the way it's done. A president should not be able to declare an emergency as a basis to do whatever he wants to, if the emergency is bogus. Congress makes that call, not the Supreme Court.

Gorsuch is saying that Congress is failing to do their jobs, as noted by their failure to reign in past presidents for executive actions taken under the guise of an emergency. And he has pointed out that the liberal justices did not do so when a democrat was in office but now they want to do it for Trump. And that is bullshit.

 

[Slade3200]

Gorsuch needs to rule as a conservative.

In what way is he not?

 

[Dragonlady]

Gorsuch needs to rule as a conservative.

That's false and is nothing more, than MAGA idiocy. Supreme Court Justices are required to base their rulings on the Constitution, not their partisanship.

In fact, they are required to set aside their partisanship when they are appointed. This is why Justice Alito flying a white supremacist flag, was so egregious.

 

[johnwk]

I don't see the problem with what Gorsuch is saying. Essentially he's saying that the Congress has the responsibility to terminate a president's declaration of an emergency under the National Emergency Act. Not the Courts, but Congress can and should do that. Whether they actually do it or not is beside the point, this is supposed to be the way it's done. A president should not be able to declare an emergency as a basis to do whatever he wants to, if the emergency is bogus. Congress makes that call, not the Supreme Court.

Gorsuch is saying that Congress is failing to do their jobs, as noted by their failure to reign in past presidents for executive actions taken under the guise of an emergency. And he has pointed out that the liberal justices did not do so when a democrat was in office but now they want to do it for Trump. And that is bullshit.

Gorsuch defended the “major questions doctrine” (MQD) as a "substantive clear-statement rule"—a constitutional guardrail meant to prevent the Executive from seizing "extraordinary power" without an "unmistakable expression" from Congress.

Contrary to Gorsuch's defense of the MQD the truth is, Congress gets to strike down the President's asserted emergency under the 1985 adopted National Emergencies Act 50 U. S. C. §1622(a)(1) providing for a “joint resolution” to terminate a president’s emergency.

 

[task0778]

Gorsuch defended the “major questions doctrine” (MQD) as a "substantive clear-statement rule"—a constitutional guardrail meant to prevent the Executive from seizing "extraordinary power" without an "unmistakable expression" from Congress.

Contrary to Gorsuch's defense of the MQD the truth is, Congress gets to strike down the President's asserted emergency under the 1985 adopted National Emergencies Act 50 U. S. C. §1622(a)(1) providing for a “joint resolution” to terminate a president’s emergency.

TBH, I didn't understand what the MQD really means. But I like the idea of Congress having the ability and responsibility to prevent the Executive from seizing too much power by declaring whatever to be an emergency. There has been a few articles about Trump declaring an emergency over the 2020 election and prescribing his own rules. Is this how he intends to remain our president beyond January 2029? Not saying that is true, but it makes me nervous. Whether he has or hasn't been a good president is beside the point.

 

[westwall]

I don't see the problem with what Gorsuch is saying. Essentially he's saying that the Congress has the responsibility to terminate a president's declaration of an emergency under the National Emergency Act. Not the Courts, but Congress can and should do that. Whether they actually do it or not is beside the point, this is supposed to be the way it's done. A president should not be able to declare an emergency as a basis to do whatever he wants to, if the emergency is bogus. Congress makes that call, not the Supreme Court.

Gorsuch is saying that Congress is failing to do their jobs, as noted by their failure to reign in past presidents for executive actions taken under the guise of an emergency. And he has pointed out that the liberal justices did not do so when a democrat was in office but now they want to do it for Trump. And that is bullshit.

Pretty much. He just doesn't write as cleanly as kavanaugh

 

[johnwk]

TBH, I didn't understand what the MQD really means. But I like the idea of Congress having the ability and responsibility to prevent the Executive from seizing too much power by declaring whatever to be an emergency. There has been a few articles about Trump declaring an emergency over the 2020 election and prescribing his own rules. Is this how he intends to remain our president beyond January 2029? Not saying that is true, but it makes me nervous. Whether he has or hasn't been a good president is beside the point.

Let me suggest fully informing yourself so as to not post such absurdities. Sometimes silence is golden, at least for those sincerely interested in discovering truth and facts.

 

[johnwk]

Gorsuch needs to rule as a conservative.

Gorsuch, as well as every member on our Supreme Court need to adhere to the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[task0778]

Let me suggest fully informing yourself so as to not post such absurdities. Sometimes silence is golden, at least for those sincerely interested in discovering truth and facts.

Bite me, John. You don't have to agree but you don't have to be a dick about it either.

 

[johnwk]

Pretty much. He just doesn't write as cleanly as kavanaugh

But joining the majority as he did, Gorsuch second-guessed congressional determinations and policy making judgments.

 

[johnwk]

Bite me, John. You don't have to agree but you don't have to be a dick about it either.

Congress is vested with exclusive legislative power to terminate a President's actions under the IEEPA

Justice Gorsuch writes in his concurring opinion “Whatever else might be said about Congress’s work in IEEPA, it did not clearly surrender to the President the sweeping tariff power he seeks to wield.”

That is absolutely correct! Following the 1983 Supreme Court decision in INS v. Chadha, which ruled a "legislative veto" was unconstitutional, Congress amended the NEA in 1985 which today requires a joint resolution to terminate a President’s declared emergency, if Congress believes the President’s actions are illegitimate in nature. Additionally, the NEA also maintains "fast track" or expedited parliamentary procedures to ensure that such resolutions receive a timely vote in both chambers.

The majority opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined, essentially assumed and exercised Congress’s exclusive legislative authority to terminate President Trump’s actions under the IEEPA.

 

[task0778]

Congress is vested with exclusive legislative power to terminate a President's actions under the IEEPA

Justice Gorsuch writes in his concurring opinion “Whatever else might be said about Congress’s work in IEEPA, it did not clearly surrender to the President the sweeping tariff power he seeks to wield.”

That is absolutely correct! Following the 1983 Supreme Court decision in INS v. Chadha, which ruled a "legislative veto" was unconstitutional, Congress amended the NEA in 1985 which today requires a joint resolution to terminate a President’s declared emergency, if Congress believes the President’s actions are illegitimate in nature. Additionally, the NEA also maintains "fast track" or expedited parliamentary procedures to ensure that such resolutions receive a timely vote in both chambers.

The majority opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined, essentially assumed and exercised Congress’s exclusive legislative authority to terminate President Trump’s actions under the IEEPA.

We are in complete agreement regarding the IEEPA. From what I understood, Gorsuch scorched the liberal justices for their opposition to Trump's emergency declaration but did support Biden's declarations as legal and constitutional. IOW, they were somewhat hypocritical, imagine that.

 

[IM2]

Gorsuch is right.

 

[martybegan]

Gorsuch is right.

Was he right about the lefty justices being flip flopping SJW idiots?

 

[westwall]

Was he right about the lefty justices being flip flopping SJW idiots?

Ohhhh, that's a question that im2stupid isn't qualified to answer.

Heck, he doesn't even understand the question.

 

[johnwk]

Gorsuch is right.

But the majority opinion ignores our system's fundamental rule to apply legislative intent to the IEEPA.


In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could “cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation.”

It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: “The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.”

And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirmed following and enforcing legislative intent:

”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”

This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:

“On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”–Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858] confirms the truth of the matter as follows:

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void."
.

The bottom line is, applying legislative intent to the IEEPA is fundamental to our system's rule of law and Justice Thomas is absolutely correct in his dissenting opinion in LEARNING RESOURCES, INC. v. TRUMP