Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has set his sights on eliminating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced which cases it would consider next and which it wouldn’t. Among those the court rejected was a case that challenged the authority of OSHA, which sets and enforces standards for health and safety in the workplace.

And Thomas, widely considered to be the most conservative justice on the already mostly conservative court, wasn’t happy.

In a dissent, he explained why he believed the high court should’ve taken the case: OSHA’s power, he argues, is unconstitutional.

  • FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    TLDR: It may be unconstitutional in his opinion because of the Non Delegation Doctrine stemming from:

    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress…

    Basically Congress can’t just go and let the Executive branch do their job. The Executive can’t make new laws only enforce the existing ones.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine

    • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      This is my rub with Clarence in general. On paper I agree with a very hardline reading of the constitution cause what else is it there for. We’re far too allergic to making constitutional amendments and laws and have built up a house of cards that gets toppled every time the administration changes.

      However, practically speaking, there’s too many actual lives depending on supreme court decisions and delegated regulations to wait for congress to do something about it (if they aren’t stalled outright by lobbying and party opposition). If the overturning of such decisions is meant to light a fire under the ass of the legislative branch, it operates much too slowly to protect the vulnerable people who suffer in the interim. Delegation is the only reason we have a (relatively) safe and clean place to live.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Like I said elsewhere, just make congress review use of delegated authority regularly and rubberstamp it if the agency is acting reasonably, otherwise they just give new directives wherever they deem fit.

        They might even let agencies notify select members of congress when changing any notable rules so they can decide if they want to call a legislative session or just OK it.

        That respects the division of powers in the constitution while still letting regulatory agencies do their jobs

        https://slrpnk.net/comment/9618565

        • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The problem is that congress doesn’t do anything quickly (unless it’s giving themselves a raise). That’s the whole reason delegation was needed, because they’re so slow to actually pass specific laws. Previously, the rule was that any ambiguity in the law could be interpreted as needed by the relevant agency. That way the law can be “companies need to ensure a certain level of safety for workers” and OSHA with their panel of experts can figure out the details of what precautions are needed where. Even if a rubber stamp is all that would be needed, they have a huge backlog of regulations to get through and a lot of companies that will fight tooth and nail to save a bit of money on safety equipment. If the SCOTUS takes such a case and rules against OSHA’s authority, you best believe there will be blood on their hands.

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            That’s why I said only notable changes should need preemptive review (if any), everything else that’s standard procedure would just be documented and OK’d after

            I agree it would have very bad consequences if the agency would get blocked entirely from acting

      • Tire@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        There needs to be a statute of limitations on how long the Supreme Court can reverse things. They can’t change things 40 years after the fact when entire agencies have been built and society has restructured around the previous ruling.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          The problem with that is Korematsu v. US was decided in 1944 and is technically still the law as no subsequent cases have come up to overturn it.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      We do have a problem with executive power creep so like there’s a world where I’m on board for non-delegation but there just is a reality that some questions are too small, detailed, and nuanced to expect a new bill out of Congress each time.

      So like setting new tariffs, should be a congressional action and it was improperly delegated. Determining whether a new ladder is safe for workers, can be delegated.

    • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The two party system has resulted in grid lock on anything pf actual value like codifying in law the things the SCOTUS has been rolling back. We’ve rested on our laurels for it to all be undone.

  • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Just trying to bring it back to the good old days when children yearned for the mines, and men got blended up in industrial machinery.

  • mycathas9lives@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Dang I can’t wait for one of these bad actors to just expire. There are a whole bunch of them close to their finish line and can go any day. Why not today? Instead we get to see things erased by the billionaire class as they by-pass the democratic process. That is the real sadness here. They don’t even care that we see what they are doing. They just do it. Fuck we are screwed. 3D basement printing might save America one day like it has other countries fighting for existence. Wow, what a time to be alive.

  • DogPeePoo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Clarence Thomas is unconstitutional. By his own originalist logic, he is only 3/5 of a human and should not be married to a white woman.

    Fuck Clarence Thomas.

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Just remember guys, the supreme court isn’t corrupted by billionaires they just happen to only want to do things that benefit the ultra wealthy. The gifts from mega rich people to Thomas mean nothing.

    ItS jUsT a cOiNcIdEnCe…

    • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes. But I am puzzled why the Ultras asked the supremes to end abortion. If I was an Ultra, I would have legalized public sex and drugs and tent cities. How does preventing abortion help the Ultras? Anyway, that’s a piece of the puzzle that I can’t understand well yet.

      Eliminating the EPA, OSHA, animal protections, all these things fall under the Ultra “I’m loving it” package.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Besides serving the ultra wealthy, the corrupt Supremes also have a Fundamentalist Christian agenda that arose from when the GOP reached out to the religious right for votes. Ending abortion is of no benefit to the ultra wealthy.

      • wizzor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Sex and drugs are already very easy to get if you are rich.

        Population growth on the other hand is an almost mandatory cornerstone of capitalism. And abortions too, will remain legal for the rich.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think it’s that more people that shouldn’t have been born are born into positions that force them to accept absolutely horrible working conditions and depress wages by their accepting anything.

        That an some of the ultra wealthy are extremely religious.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Well they have to believe they got their money for some reason and it’s easier to think it was a sky daddy than their actual daddy for some reason.

      • nyctre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Most likely argument for ending abortion is that it raises natality which means more workers/consumers. And I’m guessing tying it to religious beliefs reinforces the religion as well, which most agree that it’s used to control the masses.

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Just your daily reminder that literally no one but die hard catholics gave a single fuck about abortions until, what would today be called the right wing, made it an issue after losing the fight on desegregation and the civil rights act.

          It was just the next evolution of the southern strategy. Inflaming hatred against “non-traditional” women instead of blacks (though trust me, there was still plenty of inflaming hatred against blacks, to this day), which extended into hatred against non-traditional things in general, Which was great cause it oh so conveniently covered pretty much everything liberal.

          • nyctre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Oh, yeah, infighting is probably another good reason I had totally forgotten about. Give us something to fight over. You’re right.

      • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        They eliminated abortion because the religious extremists wanted that.

        The religious extremists are dumb as fuck as they learn and teach religion over science. That makes them useful gullible idiots that are easy to control. You want extremists behind you if you want to be a dictator as you can easily convince them with dumb obvious lies and they will be happy to have a scape goat group (it’s the evildemocrats fault!! Or the progressives! Or the gays! Or the brown people! Or the <insert other minority>)

        Also, religious extremists are very useful when you want opponents murdered, they’ll be happy to help in the name of <insert god here>

        So yeah, they have been feeding and using religious extremists for their real cause: themselves, a few wealthy and rich assholes.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        The Pope wanted it gone. This is the most Catholic Supreme Court in US history and they got rid of abortion. It really doesn’t get any deeper than that.

        Roberts in particular is really showing his age and is devout. It’s highly likely they threatened to withhold communion from him just like they did with Biden unless he gave in. If you really thought hell was real and you could end up going there you would be willing to do anything to avoid that fate. Including murder.

        Put yourself in his perspective for a moment. He kills say a million women because they are denied lifesaving treatments. Well all those women are probably going to go to heaven anyhow, and heaven is forever. If he saves those women from death he goes to hell, the women he saved still end up going where they are going but he personally gets a time period in hell that laughs at a billion eons.

        Wouldn’t you do the same? Would you really allow yourself to be tortured for fucking forever just to save people who are already saved? It makes no sense too. You might be the kinda person who would run into traffic to push a kid out of a way of a bus possibly killing yourself, but even if you were you wouldn’t just run into random traffic.