Bye-bye Chevron

[Anonymous]

This is going to be very, very scary for drug supplies.

The country is also going to be completely inundated with ineffective drugs taxpayers are going to pay out the wazoo for because the pharmaceutical industry sue and make some judge with absolutely zero scientific training approve drugs. R.I.P. American healthcare. It's about to be bankrupted by pharma.

[Anonymous]

Very narrow decision pointing out that making the fisherman pay for the privilege of being inspected is a bridge to far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very narrow decision pointing out that making the fisherman pay for the privilege of being inspected is a bridge to far.

Cost of doing business, and privilege of an expert who will keep you from destroying your own industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very narrow decision pointing out that making the fisherman pay for the privilege of being inspected is a bridge to far.

Big whoop. As if they don't push the costs of that onto consumers anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very narrow decision pointing out that making the fisherman pay for the privilege of being inspected is a bridge to far.

Big whoop. As if they don't push the costs of that onto consumers anyway.

☝️this

[Anonymous]

The US won't be liveable by 2030 at this rate. Corporations will know how to hire the lobbyists in DCUM so that business interests will be able to determine what's safe for food, water, drugs, pollution, and transportation. It is going to be a dystopian hell scape of epic proportions.

This may be the finally thing that breaks the camels back for us and makes us bail for another country. If I cannot even be guaranteed safe food, safe drugs, safe water, and clean air to breathe, how is the US liveable anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very narrow decision pointing out that making the fisherman pay for the privilege of being inspected is a bridge to far.

Cost of doing business, and privilege of an expert who will keep you from destroying your own industry.

If this is such a wonderful idea, why don't all businesses have a full-time government apparatchik?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very narrow decision pointing out that making the fisherman pay for the privilege of being inspected is a bridge to far.

Cost of doing business, and privilege of an expert who will keep you from destroying your own industry.

If this is such a wonderful idea, why don't all businesses have a full-time government apparatchik?

Let me know when THIS industry gets that. Because as of this time, it doesn’t. People would take you more seriously if you didn’t lie to make your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very narrow decision pointing out that making the fisherman pay for the privilege of being inspected is a bridge to far.

Cost of doing business, and privilege of an expert who will keep you from destroying your own industry.

If this is such a wonderful idea, why don't all businesses have a full-time government apparatchik?

If it is such a bad idea, then maybe you'll be happy when we revert back to the days of Sinclair's The Jungle.

Gee, maybe the fisherman do have legit gripes, but they could be addressed with revising what we have rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater? This is going to set precedent so industries like auto, pharma, and heavy manufacturing can drive a big rig through laws that are designed to ensure safety and clean enviroments.

Can't wait until the US no longer has safe food to eat and taxpayers are paying $2M per dose to the pharma industry for drugs that don't even work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty much the bedrock of the federal government’s ability to implement laws into regulations.

Judges are new policymakers. Did you ever expect this when you studied Chevron in law school?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/supreme-court-chevron-case.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ok0.wcXh.XpnPeh6hJGP8&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

So will this also do away with patent protection and trade marks?

Patents and Copyrights are literally in the constitution (the IP Clause). Trademarks are protected under state and federal law. The US Patent and Trademark Office is a federal agency and could be affected if Chevron is overturned but patent protection itself isn’t going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty much the bedrock of the federal government’s ability to implement laws into regulations.

Judges are new policymakers. Did you ever expect this when you studied Chevron in law school?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/supreme-court-chevron-case.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ok0.wcXh.XpnPeh6hJGP8&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

So will this also do away with patent protection and trade marks?

Patents and Copyrights are literally in the constitution (the IP Clause). Trademarks are protected under state and federal law. The US Patent and Trademark Office is a federal agency and could be affected if Chevron is overturned but patent protection itself isn’t going anywhere.

R.I.P. Gatorade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very narrow decision pointing out that making the fisherman pay for the privilege of being inspected is a bridge to far.

Cost of doing business, and privilege of an expert who will keep you from destroying your own industry.

If this is such a wonderful idea, why don't all businesses have a full-time government apparatchik?

If it is such a bad idea, then maybe you'll be happy when we revert back to the days of Sinclair's The Jungle.

Gee, maybe the fisherman do have legit gripes, but they could be addressed with revising what we have rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater? This is going to set precedent so industries like auto, pharma, and heavy manufacturing can drive a big rig through laws that are designed to ensure safety and clean enviroments.

Can't wait until the US no longer has safe food to eat and taxpayers are paying $2M per dose to the pharma industry for drugs that don't even work.

It’s not like businesses needed any help being disgusting. One of my favorite examples of businesses using loopholes is trucks. Light trucks were subjected to more regulations for safety and gas efficiency and to get around those, they basically stopped making light trucks. Which is why the hood of your average pavement Prince pickup is six feet off the ground - with the attendant mortality rates for pedestrians.

I hate Republicans with every fiber of my being as they dismantle everything that made this country special and as they snuff out every flicker of people trying to improve things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very narrow decision pointing out that making the fisherman pay for the privilege of being inspected is a bridge to far.

Maybe 10 years ago. Gorsuch's entire judicial philosophy revolves around Chevron being wrongly decided. Thomas will vote with him as will ABC. The question is whether or not they can get Alito.

[Anonymous]

I'm just happy industry will be able to pollute without regulation- just like god intended. Ideally local jurisdictions would be spiteful enough to volunteer the Justice's yards as storage for spent fuel rods once the pesky DOE loses authority to enforce regulation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The rule of law has been withering for a while

The Republican Oligarchs have been chipping away at the Rule of Law


I think that is more accurate.