Ramesh Ponnuru writes for National Review Online about a legacy media outlet’s interesting spin on the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach toward overreach from the Biden administration. Ponnuru appears less than impressed with the coverage.
Here’s how Marcia Brown starts her article, “The Supreme Court’s recent decisions could undo big Biden accomplishments”:
“President Joe Biden executed one of the most sweeping progressive agendas on labor, climate change and “corporate greed” in recent decades — only to see the Supreme Court lay it so bare that a Kamala Harris victory may not protect large chunks of it.”
“A suite of Supreme Court rulings this summer freed up federal judges to freeze many regulations the president once campaigned on or enacted to get around a deeply divided Congress. In Texas, a federal judge blocked Biden’s ban on noncompete agreements for workers, and a judge in Mississippi stopped his discrimination protections in health care for transgender people. And an Ohio-based appeals court temporarily halted a policy preventing internet companies from throttling service.”
Here’s how I’d have written it:
Even more than previous presidents, President Biden has tried to implement much of his agenda without congressional approval — an approach that is running into more and more legal trouble.
A suite of Supreme Court rulings this summer placed limits on the power of agencies to interpret the laws that govern them. In Texas, a federal judge blocked Biden’s ban on noncompete agreements for workers, and a judge in Mississippi stopped him from ordering hospitals and insurers to participate in gender-transition surgeries. And an Ohio-based appeals court — by a 3–0 vote, including appointees of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Biden himself — unanimously halted his rewriting of regulations of internet companies.
And for the headline, “Courts keep ruling Biden has overstepped his authority” would do the job well.
