Philip Anschutz has hosted rightwing justice at resort and stands to benefit if court strips power from federal regulatory agencies

Philip Anschutz has hosted rightwing justice at resort and stands to benefit if court strips power from federal regulatory agencies

Two days before oral arguments in a US supreme court case set to have a major impact on federal health and environmental regulation, a leading government watchdog called on Neil Gorsuch to recuse himself over close links to a billionaire oil baron who has hosted the rightwing justice at a mountain resort called Eagles Nest for weekends of dove shooting and who stands to benefit from the ruling at hand.

“Not only would overturning Chevron deference strip power from federal agencies, harming their ability to serve everyday Americans – but now, we know billionaire oil baron Philip Anschutz would score big from a favourable ruling by his friend on the high court,” said Caroline Ciccone, president of Accountable.US.

“It’s far past time for these justices to stop putting their billionaire pals over Americans. Recusal from cases where they have glaring conflicts of interest is the very least they can do to restore some semblance of credibility and integrity to our supreme court.”

…

But the case has much wider implications because it is thought likely to remove the Chevron deference, a principle named for a 1984 case involving the eponymous oil giant which established that federal agencies have the discretion to issue regulatory rules without congressional approval.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    201·
    6 months ago

    There’s six conservative extremists

    I think we’ll see recursals, because they can win without two of their votes.

    And get to play up that they’re not biased so the plebes stop complaining.

    • ikapoz@sh.itjust.works
      11·
      6 months ago

      Personally I doubt it. While they don’t necessarily need every vote in the decision, recusal would reinforce the precedent that they have done anything inappropriate - not the tack they have been taking.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        41·
        6 months ago

        You gotta think like a Republican…

        Not recusing now means people talk about the issue. And maybe something is done to fix it.

        This just stalls so status quo can continue.

        Like how Nixon created the EPA, it wasn’t because he cared about the environment. It was the opposite. Congress was going to create an agency with the teeth to enforce regulations. So Nixon made the EPA and made sure it couldn’t hold corporations accountable.

        This recursal is just for optics so if people complain, they can deny there’s even an issue.

        • cogman@lemmy.world
          31·
          6 months ago

          Congress was going to create an agency with the teeth to enforce regulations. So Nixon made the EPA and made sure it couldn’t hold corporations accountable.

          This is a bad take. There were already several federal agencies with some teeth, but their powers were hyper focused. The EPA was a consolidation of those agencies.

          When the EPA was established and ratified by congress, it was super popular. It passed the house 401-21 and the senate 89-11. Being environmentally conscious was popular across the aisle. There were actually right wing eco terrorists if you can believe it (Ted Kaczynski). Under nixon, ford, and carter, the EPA saw massive expansions of power.

          The reason the EPA became a bugbear of the right is Ronald Reagan. EPA was big government at it’s finest and reagan hated that. Reagan was the super sellout to corporate America and Clinton wasn’t a whole lot better with his “the era of big government is over”.