On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a SEC v. Cochran, a case in which the conservative majority could further erode the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate financial markets — and, depending on how the justices decide the case, potentially deal a powerful blow to other agencies’ ability to carry out their regulatory and enforcement mandates as well.
This is the “end game” for dark money. Because completely unregulated capitalism worked out so well in the past. Please make it stop.
Thank you–very helpful breakdown. And it’s pretty fucking rich for them to argue that a problem with the administrative state is that it’s "imbued with Wilson’s “ethnic and racial fears” and “Germanic distaste for democracy.” The constitution was imbued with racial fears and a distinctly American distaste for democracy, so…all the laws are illegitimate? Shameless.
So:
Eliminate regulations
Eliminate professional licensing
Eliminate litigation of torts
What could possibly go wrong?
If these assholes want a libertarian paradise, they should all move to Somalia, and become pirates
As shoddy and leaky that SEC oversight has proven to be, getting rid of it would be a complete ripoff of the consumer, who would be at the mercy of the same rogues who tore a big hole in the 2008 economy. They would ravage the financial economy, crash it thoroughly for their own short-term profits, then get ANOTHER government handout to recover themselves for the next round. Welcome to Financial Kakistocracy…
This is what Rogue Academics do: make up stuff and try to ride the wave into notoriety and importance by impressing a deluded billionaire or two. Then on to the Supreme Court for political blessing by the robed rogues.
Given the dark, reactionary, fascistic direction the country is taking, the good news, for me at least, is that I have dual citizenship and can escape if things get really out of hand. The bad news is that it’s Israel, which if anything appears to be taking and even more extreme turn to the far right. Then again, apparently I can also get a Spanish passport, and perhaps even a Bulgarian one too, and both are supposed to be good places to live and not veering towards the far right. But seriously, is this what many of us will have to resort to? The more people leave, the more right wing the country gets, since those who leave will be mostly soft right to center-left, giving the MAGA Nuts a near outright majority. Is the world just experiencing a periodic swing to the right and eventually it’ll swing back, or is this for good? They sure are trying to lock in that swing.
They love the deregulation. All they have to do is wait until the people that suffered from the catastrophe die, then they can imagine no rule should have ever been there in the first place.
For a regulation to get passed in this country somebody has to die. Likely thousands. Shoot - you can be prescribed opioids today.
I went to my other country during the Trump administration. I did it for my liver health watching the guy hijack the GOP church=vote machine.
I’m back now, and ready to fight. We can’t let a bunch of internet tough guys with a few rubles backing, or the born-rich hard-ons of Queens and Wichita write a death sentence for America on the back of the ace of spades and play on with a new deck (Auden).
My father and grandfather would rise form the grave. They both fought Nazis for America, and dad spent 2 decades in a submarine fighting the Russians.
Hmmm. I think they call that the imprimatur.
That’s unfair to Somalia and its pirates. They actually have a just complaint, namely that fishing fleets from other countries have invaded their coastal waters and made it impossible for locals to get a living. Not a good way of dealing with it.
I think we should just settle for no one else in the world being bound to any contract with them. And no regulatory agency doing anything to protect their interests. Because they still want the safe foods and the roads and everything else nice that comes with a regulatory state, they just don’t want to pay for it or be bound by it.
This argument has become key to the conservative assault on agencies, and holds that they mimic the raw exercise of nonrepresentative, executive power carried out in late medieval and early modern European monarchies. It also traces their origin to 19th century German bureaucrats. Due to these roots, Hamburger argues, such agencies are both anti-democratic and unconstitutional.
I get the feeling that the same lawyers would argue that company towns, stores, script and law enforcement are not only ‘American,’ but also respect all the liberties that should be found in the constitution.
It reminds me of “germ theory” for democratic government: there was a period of time when historians of the US believed that democracy had some roots in the Germanic chieftains who battled the late Roman Empire. Yes, really. As a medieval historian, I found this hilarious.
The Somali pirate thing was a reference to the South Park episode wherein the boys go off to Somalia to become pirates. Turns out it’s not what they think.
All of these anti-regulation clowns would starve to death in any sort of actual competitive environment.
You are correct in asserting that they want the benefits of protection, but don’t want to pay for them. It’s of a piece with private school vouchers and the panoply of tax loopholes for businesses and wealthy individuals.
Welcome to monopolies, higher prices, rancid food, the return of child labor, superfund sites and early deaths for workers across the country.
Ah, stopped watching South Park after they killed Kenny. 
(Actually, once we had kids and no secure place to watch tv…)
It wasn’t clear to me that’s even in question here. TBH, tho, since the article rambled all around without addressing the central question of what might be the impacts of a gov’t-adverse ruling, I just stopped reading after a while.
When I worked at the EPA, an administrative law judge was by no means the end of the line for litigation. Agency rulings end up in court all the time. However, the courts will throw out cases that haven’t yet been before an administrative judge because the plaintiff has not yet exhausted her administrative options
C’mon…who needs accounting, ethics, responsibility, clean air & water and all the other silly left wing ideas?
Sheesh!
I added that. Tort reform is something the R’s are forever whining about. And eliminating regulations and licensing requirements would inevitably lead to injury of some kind, with fewer avenues to pursue some redress of grievances.
It’s all part of the Republican wet dream.
OK, because I’m personally interested in agencies, I looked this up. I believe TPM may have mis-reported the essence of SEC v. Cochran
Here is how TPM summarizes the case:
At issue in the case is whether Michelle Cochran, a certified public accountant, can challenge the constitutionality of the administrative law judge who presided over a proceeding the SEC brought against her
Here is SCOTUSBlog:
Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear a suit in which the respondent in an ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission administrative proceeding seeks to enjoin that proceeding, based on an alleged constitutional defect in the statutory provisions that govern the removal of the administrative law judge who will conduct the proceeding.
N.B.: Ballotpedia: summary matches that of SCOTUSBlog, with source given as the complaint itself
The background presented by both SCOTUSBlog and Ballotpedia make clear that this is not a case about whether an administrative law court is Constitutional. It’s about the timing of when a plaintiff may bring to court a question of Constitutionality regarding a particular administrative court. Does she have to wait for the Administrative court to rule or may she bring a case prior to the Administrative ruling?
TPM claims this is about a past ruling (and by now it may in fact be past) but the case is not about a past ruling, nor even about a ruling per se, nor is it about whether such a complaint can be made. It is very narrowly a question of when such a complaint is ripe. IOW, does she have to wait for an adverse ruling to challenge whether an aspect of that court is unConstitutional?
In this case, and again, very narrowly so, the aspect in question is whether it’s unConstitutional that an administrative judge cannot be removed.
You all do realize that the article named people,let’s diss them.
To all commenters on TPM, even the sad ones.
It’s too late