The startling claim came amid a lawsuit from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
See full article...
See full article...
RFK Jr. can promote getting measles with impunity, DOJ lawyer tells judge
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
That's exactly the position of the entire Trump administration. Anything they do is "unreviewable". Trump won the presidential election, and their view is that made him the king for four years.*
* Minimum
* Minimum
Upvote
430
(431
/
-1)
From what I have read, courts take a very dim view of both civil servants and politicians who claim that their authority makes their policy above review. So I would hazard a guess that this is a very poor starting position for the DoJ officials.
Of course, the judge issuing a ruling and the government actually complying are two vastly different things.
Of course, the judge issuing a ruling and the government actually complying are two vastly different things.
Upvote
390
(390
/
0)
So, legally speaking "un-reviewability" is actually a valid argument (but maybe not a good one in this case).
Whether they're correct about that is a different matter, and is for the judge to decide... but it's not a wildly unreasonable argument to make as matter of whether the courts have the authority to intervene in the executive or legislative branches. It's a very particular line of argument that may just not hold up.
You have to understand this within the context of the legal strategy being used here rather than some common meaning of the apparent arrogance of the statement. Sure it sounds bad or "startling" when you phrase it in a headline... but what they're really asserting is that the court has no constitutional right to intervene in this particular executive determination, specifically. That's a much more specific and important question to settle and it's not as sensational as it sounds on its face.
With all that said.. most of the judiciary is getting pretty sick of this administrations antics and claims... so it doesn't bode well for the administration here.
Whether they're correct about that is a different matter, and is for the judge to decide... but it's not a wildly unreasonable argument to make as matter of whether the courts have the authority to intervene in the executive or legislative branches. It's a very particular line of argument that may just not hold up.
You have to understand this within the context of the legal strategy being used here rather than some common meaning of the apparent arrogance of the statement. Sure it sounds bad or "startling" when you phrase it in a headline... but what they're really asserting is that the court has no constitutional right to intervene in this particular executive determination, specifically. That's a much more specific and important question to settle and it's not as sensational as it sounds on its face.
With all that said.. most of the judiciary is getting pretty sick of this administrations antics and claims... so it doesn't bode well for the administration here.
Last edited:
Upvote
200
(206
/
-6)
The entire Trump administration thinks they are "above the law". And they will be until people hold them accountable.
Upvote
250
(250
/
0)
I really, really REALLY dread the upcoming shitshow in 2028 when he says he is going to run for a 3rd term and everyone else can get over it.
Because we all know it is coming.
Upvote
215
(219
/
-4)
That pretty much describes the actions of any person in this administration.
And now we are reaping the consequences of their actions. The USA is about to lose our status as "measles eradicated", thanks to this particular idiot. And, if a post I saw yesterday is to be believed, only a few states have a high enough vaccination rate to prevent a measles outbreak.
Upvote
103
(103
/
0)
Upvote
54
(57
/
-3)
That's ok, the DOJ lawyer has already put that idea in their heads by stating JFKJr can do whatever the hell he wants and the administration is perfectly fine with it.*
*Unless that runs counter to Trump's personal feelings.
Upvote
35
(38
/
-3)
its kind of even worse. previously if the government chose to not do something or chose to enforce a lower standard than states, the federal government was forced to choose either letting patchwork standards exist in the name of states rights or enforce a standard all states could get behind. the trump admin wants it both ways, they want the laxer regulations and want states to be forced to obey them. The SCOTUS has been forcing this through via the shadow docket but when it actually gets reviewed in court the government usually looks like a bunch of idiots.
Upvote
83
(84
/
-1)
typically thats extremely limited in scope to say things like FDA reviews where there's a large lengthy, documented process not these 1-2 meetings where vast amounts of public policy is being overwritten by a committee filled with medically dubious advisors. I'd also mention major questions doctrine but SCOTUS is so selective on that
Upvote
45
(46
/
-1)
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
For some reason "the algorithm" was shoving down Star Trek The Next Generation related info around the episode "The Drumhead" yesterday. And yet, the final bit of that episode when Worf and Picard are chatting rings fairly true today. Yikes.The hubris of man
View: https://youtu.be/CbQvCzWkATA?t=44&si=LYEt-09opkWeTLVz
Upvote
54
(55
/
-1)
Chief Justice Marshall has made his ruling, let him enforce it!
To quote a similarly ugly piece of American Presidential history.
Upvote
68
(68
/
0)
You mean the worm from his skull cavity? I'm not sure much else is in there... Or ever was to be honest, perhaps the worms died of starvation
Upvote
18
(19
/
-1)
I mean, is this really a surprise? Authoritarianism IS a feature of the project, after all.
Upvote
59
(60
/
-1)
Sure. Back before the vaccine. If it was spreading amongst kids in a group it was almost a certainty that they would all get it. And spread it to siblings. So many parents would actively do this. I get it.
But now we have a vaccine. So this is stupid. Well at least ignorant. I try and use the two terms correctly. As the saying goes, "You can't fix stupid."
Upvote
66
(67
/
-1)
Watching his physical and cognitive decline accelerate over the last year I'm finding it hard to worry about this. Can we really see him lasting to 2028? He really isn't well.
There's only so far you can carry a man that's falling apart. At this rate they will need Jim Henson's Creature Shop to animate him by 2027.
Upvote
115
(118
/
-3)
It is all about what the legislation establishing the CDC says. Can the head just make up the rules based on no evidenct? And there is a law, I forget the name, that regulatory changes can't be caprecious or similar.
Upvote
39
(39
/
0)
I mean, Chevron deference is gone, right? Courts are no longer allowed to defer to department experts. It cuts both ways….
Upvote
91
(92
/
-1)
That being said, courts are also reluctant to second-guess the federally-appointed experts[1] in a field. Most judges don’t want to be setting vaccine policy, or aircraft safety requirements. They (rightly) expect the legislative branch and executive branch to work those out and believe the courts should only be responsible for adjudicating whether something complied with those laws and regulations.
This case will likely not hinge on whether the AAP can show that Secretary Brainworm’s vaccine policy is “bad”. It will depend on whether Secretary Brainworm modified the policy according to the required process.
[1] Unfortunately for us, RFK Jr is the federally-appointed expert. That was what was at stake when he was appointed. Hopefully that will be remembered going forward for at least one or two generations.
Upvote
71
(71
/
0)
Yeah. And it was a great idea before the vaccine, because the younger you caught the disease, the less severe the symptoms would be. Agreed, now it would be stupid, but it was the right thing to do with that specific disease in an era before the vaccine existed.
Upvote
39
(39
/
0)
Funny how EVERYTHING that is done by agencies prior to Trump taking over was illegal, overreach, etc., but suddenly now, with Trump's cronies in place, they're "unreviewable" and unlimited.
Upvote
129
(129
/
0)
Is there any long any doubt that the Republican party and in particular this administration has crossed over from conservative to fascist. Without judicial review we are a country without law.
Upvote
46
(46
/
0)
While the “Justice” Department may say Kennedy is unreviewable, we don’t have to listen to him.
In a way, he’s giving good advice if you interpret it correctly. Just make sure you do the exact opposite of what he says. If you do exactly what he says, you’ll likely die.
In a way, he’s giving good advice if you interpret it correctly. Just make sure you do the exact opposite of what he says. If you do exactly what he says, you’ll likely die.
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
Speaking only for myself, but if someone ever tries to claim that my policy decisions are "unreviewable", I will go John fucking Marshall on that poor SOB and they will get a lesson on the Administrative Process Act and its state equivalents and a lecture on the separation of powers and the mother of all lectures on Marbury v Madison and what it means for the executive branch.
This is beyond a clown show, clowns are at least trained educated professionals who would be horrified at being compared to this improvisational bullshit.
This is beyond a clown show, clowns are at least trained educated professionals who would be horrified at being compared to this improvisational bullshit.
Upvote
89
(89
/
0)
I mean, you can think that, certainly. But you don't know that. Not to mention that early in his 2nd term last year he was already talking about the 22nd amendment as it if was optional.
Upvote
23
(23
/
0)
SAME. But unlike South Park, we never played 'ookie mouth'
But on a more serious note, us Xennials now get to look forward to the real risk of shingles. ...yay...
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)