I have never met anyone who I believed to be intelligent who was also humorless. When comedian Nate Bargatze took the stage last week at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis he spent a few moments making sure the crowd knew he was not an educated man. Bargatze is intelligent though. And he's as funny they come. In contrast, the Supreme Court of the United States was once regarded as the sage, learned body, epitomizing intelligence, credibility and thoughtfulness. This once esteemed tribunal personified its "supremacy" for rational, unhumorous reasons. However, as of Monday, July 1, 2024, its self-desecration is complete, and has now become a laughingstock.  The conservative majority of the court has twisted itself into knots to help Donald Trump with the absurdity that he should have some immunity from prosecution for his criminal acts. The mantra of "no man is above the law" ended this week in America. The 6-3 Trump v. United States ruling produced dissenting language in a tone unheard of in the court's storied history. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the minority, "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."  The cloud of this debacle will feel like a diversion soon though, because there's so much more. Let's discuss nitrous oxide. You've likely heard of it. It's what dentists give patients to relax them before needles and drills are used to bludgeon their mouths. It's laughing gas. It's fun. And it should never be confused with nitrogen oxides, which is what the Environmental Protection Agency regulates to control pollution. Justice Neil Gorsuch famously mistook one for the other, five times, in his Ohio v. EPA ruling on Thursday. Then on Friday, SCOTUS ruled that courts are better positioned to do what regulatory experts have broadly done since 1984. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo, the supremes ruled that courts are more suited to decide anything and everything, scientific and complicated, than actual experts. Experts like those who know the difference between pollutants and laughing gas. The 1984 decision, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, established what has become known as the Chevron deference. The late Justice Antonin Scalia was a notorious supporter of the deference, because it provided a dependable "background rule of law against which Congress can legislate." He believed Congress wanted agencies, or subject matter experts, to exercise discretion on the implementation of their laws. I've been a regulator and a legislative consultant, and I know this to be historically true.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert  

Ver todos los episodios