US Supreme Court case SEC v Jarkesy threatens the role of adminstrative law judges

Chief Justice John Roberts, signaling his concerns with the power of federal regulators, noted that “the impact of governmental agencies on daily life today is enormously more significant than it was 50 years ago.”

You know, governmental agencies don't impede my daily life very much, Roberts, mainly because my daily activities don't include ripping off near $700,000. A fine of less than half the gains is hardly 'stiff'.

In the Jarkesy case, the Democratic administration is relying on a 50-year-old decision in which the court ruled that in-house proceedings did not violate the Constitution’s right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits.

But Chief Justice John Roberts, signaling his concerns with the power of federal regulators, noted that “the impact of governmental agencies on daily life today is enormously more significant than it was 50 years ago.”

The court’s three liberal justices seemed sympathetic to the Biden administration’s arguments. Justice Elena Kagan, responding to Roberts, said “our problems have only gotten more complicated and difficult.”

Later, Kagan said in-house enforcement actions have been close to routine for the past half-century. “Nobody has had the, you know, chutzpah, to quote my people,” said Kagan, who is Jewish.

Well it's a good thing this court isn't in the business of overturning long-standing precedent.

I was thinking, however: If administrative courts can be removed so that enforcement cases can go to a regular jury trial, maybe we can also get rid of arbitration panels that are written into every contract that regular consumers deal with, too. Somehow I doubt that'd happen though.

“That seems problematic to say that the government can deprive you of your property, your money, substantial sums in a tribunal that is at least perceived as not being impartial,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said.

I hope the irony of this argument isn't lost on Justice Kavanaugh. I just finished listening to Pro Publica's 3 part series on Leonard Leo, called "We don't talk about Leonard." There's a point towards the end where a Conservative operative says, and I'm paraphrasing, "A liberal journalist, a movie producer, a judge, and a senator have lunch in some Liberal enclave and they strategize how to intertwine their materials. The journalist will write about a girl who felt trapped in her body and transitioned to be a man, the movie producer will make a movie, the judge will twist law to fit their perverted narrative, and the senator will pass a bill to force kids to be educated about it all." So many of the people taking part in the deconstruction of safeguards in our country believe, so fervently, that Liberals are conniving to change the world against them, so they feel compelled to connive to do the same. In multiple interviews during the show, Conservatives said some variation of this. "Well, the liberals are working to corrupt our legal system to their advantage and pervert our children, so we're just going to do it for us instead."

It seems reasonable to be allowed to appeal your case in federal court, but there should exist an initial in-house proceeding that handles the vast majority of cases.