A Supreme Court decision (and dissent) that clearly draw the lines between principled originalism under our Constitution and advocacy for an all-powerful administrative state unconstrained by law.
The 7th Amendment plainly requires a jury trial in all lawsuits. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sought to charge the defendant civil penalties for fraud and, in doing so, acted as prosecutor and judge (no jury allowed).
The Court said: “A defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator.”
Simple enough, but not for the three "progressive" members of the Court. In a dissent, Justice Sotomayor weaseled her way around the 7th Amendment by claiming "There are good reasons for Congress to set up a scheme like the SEC’s. It may yield important benefits over jury trials in federal court, such as greater efficiency and expertise, transparency and reasoned decision making, as well as uniformity, predictability, and greater political accountability. . ."
"Sotomayor complains that the Court’s decision “prescribes artificial constraints on what modern-day adaptable governance must look like.” No, it reiterates constitutional constraints on what modern-day adaptable governance must look like. And “must” is a key word there. This stuff isn’t optional."
"[Justice] Gorsuch writes: “The agency is free to pursue all of its charges against Mr. Jarkesy. And it is free to pursue them exactly as it had always done until 2010: In a court, before a judge, and with a jury.” You know, as the Constitution says.
Thank goodness we don’t live in a world where Sotomayor’s dissent, with which the other two progressive justices agreed, is the opinion of the Court. Jarkesy makes clear that without originalism, there are practically no limits to government power."
https://lnkd.in/gbprF53z