The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was designed to restore the constitutional balance in decisions to commit the United States to armed conflict. Its central provision — a legislative veto enabling Congress to direct the withdrawal of American forces by concurrent resolution — was cast into legal doubt by the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha. But Chadha was wrongly decided, its reasoning is exceptionally weak, and the Court’s subsequent embrace of functionalism in separation-of-powers cases has left it incoherent as precedent. As the United States drifts deeply into a congressionally unauthorized war with Iran, the case for overruling Chadha, or at minimum limiting it to its facts, has never been stronger.
Archiv: Brett Michael Kavanaugh (US Supreme Court judge)
Justices: Current Members
John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, (…)
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, (…)
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, (…)
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, (…)
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, (…)
Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, (…)
Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, (…)
Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice, (…)
Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice, (…)
The Supreme Court May Legalize Donald Trump’s War on Iran
(March 2, 2026)
Alito responded. “The president has the power of the commander in chief. I think there has been general agreement, and (previous) cases support the authority of the president to take military action on his own in the case of an emergency, when there is not time for Congress to react.”
Alito’s answer is no longer a historical artifact.
(…)
In addition to Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts has joined the attack.
In a 1984 memo entitled “War Powers Problem,” Roberts — then an associate in Ronald Reagan’s White House counsel’s office — advised the Reagan administration to oppose legislation extending tax benefits to veterans who served in Reagan’s unauthorized military deployment to Lebanon. Roberts argued that the administration should oppose the bill simply because it mentioned Congress’s constitutional power to declare war.
(…)
Justice Brett Kavanaugh has seemingly come down on both sides of the issue regarding limiting presidential war power. In a 2015 Appeals Court ruling, the conservative judge wrote that “in justiciable cases, courts should not hesitate to enforce constitutional and statutory constraints on wartime activities.”
(…)
Additionally, Justice Clarence Thomas has also questioned whether Congress has the power to rein in presidential power related to national security. In a dissenting opinion for a 2004 Supreme Court case, Thomas wrote that the Constitution gives the president “primary responsibility” over national security and foreign policy.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, ET AL., APPLICANTS 21A244 v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, ET AL
(13.01.2022)
Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th, at 272 (Sutton, C. J., dissenting). It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594
U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per curiam) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks omitted). There can be little doubt that OSHA’s mandate qualifies as an exercise of such authority. The question, then, is whether the Act plainly authorizes the Secretary’s mandate. It does not. The Act empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures.
(…)
The Solicitor General does not dispute that OSHA is limited to regulating “work-related dangers.” Response Brief for OSHA in No. 21A244 etc., p. 45 (OSHA Response). She instead argues that the risk of contracting COVID–19 qualifies as such a danger. We cannot agree. Although COVID–19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
Biden rips Supreme Court decision on race-based college admissions: ‚Not a normal court‘
(29.06.2023)
„A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination,“ Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. „In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race.“
„Many universities have for too long done just the opposite,“ Roberts continued. „And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.“
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, ET AL., APPLICANTS 21A244 v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, ET AL
(13.01.2022)
Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th, at 272 (Sutton, C. J., dissenting). It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594
U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per curiam) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks omitted). There can be little doubt that OSHA’s mandate qualifies as an exercise of such authority. The question, then, is whether the Act plainly authorizes the Secretary’s mandate. It does not. The Act empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures.
(…)
The Solicitor General does not dispute that OSHA is limited to regulating “work-related dangers.” Response Brief for OSHA in No. 21A244 etc., p. 45 (OSHA Response). She instead argues that the risk of contracting COVID–19 qualifies as such a danger. We cannot agree. Although COVID–19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, ET AL., APPLICANTS 21A244 v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, ET AL
(13.01.2022)
Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th, at 272 (Sutton, C. J., dissenting). It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594
U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per curiam) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks omitted). There can be little doubt that OSHA’s mandate qualifies as an exercise of such authority. The question, then, is whether the Act plainly authorizes the Secretary’s mandate. It does not. The Act empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures.
(…)
The Solicitor General does not dispute that OSHA is limited to regulating “work-related dangers.” Response Brief for OSHA in No. 21A244 etc., p. 45 (OSHA Response). She instead argues that the risk of contracting COVID–19 qualifies as such a danger. We cannot agree. Although COVID–19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, ET AL., APPLICANTS 21A244 v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, ET AL
(13.01.2022)
Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th, at 272 (Sutton, C. J., dissenting). It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594
U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per curiam) (slip op., at 6) (internal
quotation marks omitted). There can be little doubt that
OSHA’s mandate qualifies as an exercise of such authority.
The question, then, is whether the Act plainly authorizes
the Secretary’s mandate. It does not. The Act empowers
the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures.
(…)
The Solicitor General does not dispute that OSHA is lim-
ited to regulating “work-related dangers.” Response Brief
for OSHA in No. 21A244 etc., p. 45 (OSHA Response). She
instead argues that the risk of contracting COVID–19 qual-
ifies as such a danger. We cannot agree. Although COVID–
19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from
crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
Senate Judiciary Committee Releases Summary of Investigation from Supreme Court Confirmation
414-Page Report Concludes No Evidence to Support Allegations Against Justice Kavanaugh
Supreme Court: Was die Ernennung von Kavanaugh für die USA bedeutet
Mit Kavanaughs Ernennung beginnt eine neue Ära im Supreme Court. Der 53-Jährige ist auf Lebenszeit ernannt, die Altersstruktur des Gerichts dürfte den Republikanern nun auf Jahrzehnte eine konservative Mehrheit sichern. Politisierung und institutionelles Gewicht des Supreme Courts haben in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten auch deshalb zugenommen, weil die Arbeit an Gesetzen und lagerübergreifenden Kompromissen im US-Kongress praktisch eingestellt wurde.
Kavanaugh Is Sworn In After Close Confirmation Vote in Senate
The Kavanaugh confirmation, playing out against the backdrop of a midterm election where control of Congress is at stake, gave Republicans what they believe is momentum to ensure that they keep their slim Senate majority.
Republicans are now painting Democrats and their activist allies as angry mobs. Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, delivered a speech on Saturday assailing what he called “mob rule,” while the majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, told reporters that “the virtual mob that has assaulted all of us in this process has turned our base on fire.”
Collins and Manchin Will Vote for Kavanaugh, Ensuring His Confirmation
A final vote is expected late Saturday afternoon.
Judge Kavanaugh’s ascent to the nation’s highest court is a huge victory for President Trump, Senate Republicans and their conservative allies, who have mounted a decades-long campaign to remake the Supreme Court in their image. He will replace the court’s swing vote, the retired Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, with a committed conservative who is likely to push the court to the right for decades.
Kavanaugh nomination: Murkowski no, Flake yes for Saturday‘s final vote
Flake said he will back Kavanaugh unless something changes. Asked how he will vote, he said „yes, unless something big were to change. I don‘t see what would.“ The Arizona Republican had forced a one-week delay and an extended FBI investigation into Kavanaugh.
GOP defeats Dem filibuster, keeps Kavanaugh on track
The 51-49 vote saw one defection from each party, canceling each other out and giving the judge enough leeway to clear the procedural hurdle. A final confirmation vote now looms on Saturday, and that remains in doubt.
Glad the FBI will now look into the allegations regarding Judge Kavanaugh before the Senate takes a vote. This should‘ve been done already, but better late than never. The American people deserve better from our leaders.
What‘s really going on in the viral picture of women grimacing during Kavanaugh‘s angry defense
An image from Brett Kavanaugh‘s testimony as he denied sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford went viral.
The image shows several women behind Kavanaugh scowling as he became visibly angry during his hearing on Thursday.
Many saw it as a wider symbol of how women were reacting to Kavanaugh and to the visible emotion Ford displayed during her testimony earlier in the day.
But people sitting behind Kavanaugh were his friends, family, and allies.
Anderson Cooper: This is what a U-turn looks like
President Donald Trump ordered a limited, week-long FBI probe of the allegations against his Supreme Court pick, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, at the request of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday. It was a 180-degree turn from his previous statements about making such a move.
Fall Kavanaugh: Zeugenaussagen, die ins kulturelle Gedächtnis Amerikas eingehen dürften
We Are Living Nineteen Eighty-Four
In Orwell’s world of 1984 Oceania, there is no longer a sense of due process, free inquiry, rules of evidence and cross examination, much less a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Instead, regimented ideology — the supremacy of state power to control all aspects of one’s life to enforce a fossilized idea of mandated quality — warps everything from the use of language to private life.
Senator Diane Feinstein and the other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had long sought to destroy the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. Much of their paradoxical furor over his nomination arises from the boomeranging of their own past political blunders, …
Thursday‘s hearing should be canceled in light of a disturbing new allegation of sexual misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh. The FBI must investigate ALL allegations.
(23.9.2018)
Requiring an FBI investigation of a 36 year old allegation (without specific references to time or location) before Professor Ford will appear before the Judiciary Committee is not about finding the truth, but delaying the process till after the midterm elections
Trumps Richterkandidat: Zweite Frau wirft Kavanaugh sexuellen Übergriff vor
Ramirez ist die zweite Frau, die Kavanaugh eines sexuellen Übergriffs beschuldigt: Christine Blasey Ford aus Kalifornien hatte in einem Interview mit der „Washington Post“ berichtet, der damals 17-jährige Kavanaugh habe versucht, sie am Rande einer Schülerparty Anfang der Achtzigerjahre zu vergewaltigen. Kavanaugh hat diese Vorwürfe mehrfach vehement zurückgewiesen.
Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Confirmation Is Now the Ultimate Test of Political Power in 2018
(20.9.2018) Both parties have every incentive to fight to the finish: Democrats see an opportunity to galvanize their already furious base, while Republicans, who’d hoped to put a big election-eve win on the board, fear discouraging theirs.
The Supreme Court: Every seat „a chess piece in the struggle for power“
(23.9.2018) Totenberg broke the Anita Hill story, and is covering the replay.
„This is an election year, after all,“ Totenberg said. „Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want to look insensitive. But it is a very political proceeding. A great deal of what we see on camera will be, and has been, role-playing.“
In The New York Times last week, Hill wrote that the Senate Judiciary Committee appears to have „learned little from the Thomas hearing, much less the more recent #MeToo movement.“
New Book Warns Of The Supreme Court‘s Power
(2.9.2018) With the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh pending, NPR‘s Michel Martin interviews David A. Kaplan about his new book, The Most Dangerous Branch: Inside the Supreme Court‘s Assault on the Constitution.
Kavanaugh Hearing Erupts Into CHAOS
Brett Kavanaugh had a rough day… Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down.
The Still-Secret Brett Kavanaugh Documents Are a Scandal
Unless something dramatic happens at this week’s Senate confirmation hearings, Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s choice to replace retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, is bound to repeat history. Not just because he and Rehnquist, whom he’s called his “judicial hero,” are cut from the same partisan mold — shaped by the ways of Republican politics and conservatives’ dogged pursuit of judicial supremacy. It’s also because there are millions of records from his time in the White House under George W. Bush that the Trump administration is determined to keep a secret.