That the major questions doctrine may now be used to rein in the Trump administration’s trade policy should give no one comfort, particularly not progressives or liberals. The principal purpose of the major questions doctrine will continue to be blocking climate action, industrial policy, labor protections, and any serious attempt from the Left to challenge entrenched economic elites. Progressives celebrating this ruling risk encouraging the construction of the very legal architecture that will be used to defeat their own agenda for decades to come.

…no matter how hard the liberal justices try to finesse this issue, there is no way they can avoid cosigning an opinion that invokes the major questions doctrine. The doctrine is simply the only route to five, six, or even seven votes against the administration in this case. This means that a defeat for the White House would depend on liberal justices’ formal acceptance of the major questions doctrine for the very first time.

  • inmatarian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Wait wait, so, the reason we shouldn’t stop the tyrant is because the survivors won’t be able to perform the same tyranny?

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      It’s because the predicted ruling on this issue relies on an extremely awful bit of doctrine that will become formally accepted if used in this ruling - and that means it will be very difficult to prevent it being used against progressive policies in the future.

      It’s a bit like the judicial version of the patriot act - hypothetically it sure would help us catch terrorists, but maybe we should think it through a little bit more before using this specific legal mechanism to do that.

      It’s not “we shouldn’t do this” it’s “we should find a different method of doing this, because this method isn’t going to stop trump and it has a ton of unintended consequences”