Bye-bye Chevron

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a twist of irony: will removal of the Chevron deference necessitate a big expansion of government?

If the Judiciary intends to become a policymaking body, they will likely need to build out a deep bench of policy experts that are “loyal” to judges.

Ever consider that the federal government isn’t supposed to be doing all of this shit in the first place?

The legislature passes laws and statutes, and it is the job of the executive branch to figure out how to implement those laws and statutes via the rulemaking and regulatory process.

Anyone saying executive branch can't or shouldn't be involved in regulation has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Umm, wasn't that the point of this case? The executive branch was doing stuff it was never empowered to do in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will be good if Trump is elected again by preventing him from doing crazy stuff via EO.

Ha! You think the republicans on the court are going to apply this consistently?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a twist of irony: will removal of the Chevron deference necessitate a big expansion of government?

If the Judiciary intends to become a policymaking body, they will likely need to build out a deep bench of policy experts that are “loyal” to judges.

Ever consider that the federal government isn’t supposed to be doing all of this shit in the first place?

If you are suggesting it should be up to the states, that is a nightmare for businesses who would need to conform the the most regulated state for their products to be accepted nationally. Business like dealing with one set of rules, not 50 or hundreds. This is a nightmare of epic proportions.

[Anonymous]

Excellent decision.

Enough with governing by fiat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a twist of irony: will removal of the Chevron deference necessitate a big expansion of government?

If the Judiciary intends to become a policymaking body, they will likely need to build out a deep bench of policy experts that are “loyal” to judges.

Ever consider that the federal government isn’t supposed to be doing all of this shit in the first place?

The legislature passes laws and statutes, and it is the job of the executive branch to figure out how to implement those laws and statutes via the rulemaking and regulatory process.

Anyone saying executive branch can't or shouldn't be involved in regulation has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Umm, wasn't that the point of this case? The executive branch was doing stuff it was never empowered to do in the first place.

Because the founding fathers could anticipate environmental impacts of data centers? Or particulate density in certain drugs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Excellent decision.

Enough with governing by fiat.

It's not by fiat. That is right wing propaganda. People with PHD and expert in their fields are the ones who develop the minutia of the rules and regulations BECAUSE they are expert in them. You seem to favor an idiocracy.

Well, congratulations. I hope you don't get botulism.

[Anonymous]

We will go back to the stock market of the 20’s-no regulations, inside trading, etc. Wolf of Wall Street is now totally legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s really sad that there is such deep vitriol from conservatives towards government.

Why? Government makes things worse at every opportunity. Your dishwasher takes forever and does a worse job than it did 20 years ago due to dumb regulations. Same for your washing machine. CAFE standards are wasteful, among many other regulations that dramatically increase the costs of cars? No one wants a start-stop feature. Wonder how much those costs?

Dems look at the good regulations from a bygone era (e.g., catalytic converters) and think every future regulation must be similarly good. The truth is we captured most of the low-hanging fruit generations ago and can stop making things more costly in the name of "doing something."

50 years ago we went to the moon. Today, the government subcontracts with a company that can't even return a vehicle from space. It's pathetic. Who would trust the same government to regulate something as complex as the economy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a twist of irony: will removal of the Chevron deference necessitate a big expansion of government?

If the Judiciary intends to become a policymaking body, they will likely need to build out a deep bench of policy experts that are “loyal” to judges.

Ever consider that the federal government isn’t supposed to be doing all of this shit in the first place?

The legislature passes laws and statutes, and it is the job of the executive branch to figure out how to implement those laws and statutes via the rulemaking and regulatory process.

Anyone saying executive branch can't or shouldn't be involved in regulation has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Umm, wasn't that the point of this case? The executive branch was doing stuff it was never empowered to do in the first place.

Because the founding fathers could anticipate environmental impacts of data centers? Or particulate density in certain drugs?

You don't seem to understand this case. Data centers or drugs are not relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really sad that there is such deep vitriol from conservatives towards government.

Why? Government makes things worse at every opportunity. Your dishwasher takes forever and does a worse job than it did 20 years ago due to dumb regulations. Same for your washing machine. CAFE standards are wasteful, among many other regulations that dramatically increase the costs of cars? No one wants a start-stop feature. Wonder how much those costs?

Dems look at the good regulations from a bygone era (e.g., catalytic converters) and think every future regulation must be similarly good. The truth is we captured most of the low-hanging fruit generations ago and can stop making things more costly in the name of "doing something."

50 years ago we went to the moon. Today, the government subcontracts with a company that can't even return a vehicle from space. It's pathetic. Who would trust the same government to regulate something as complex as the economy?

Yes let’s go back to leaded gasoline, no airbags or seat belts, no hard hats, washing machine that catch fire, dishwashers that burn your hand, etc. Hopefully we can remove those regulations on crash testing. Can’t wait!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a twist of irony: will removal of the Chevron deference necessitate a big expansion of government?

If the Judiciary intends to become a policymaking body, they will likely need to build out a deep bench of policy experts that are “loyal” to judges.

Ever consider that the federal government isn’t supposed to be doing all of this shit in the first place?

The legislature passes laws and statutes, and it is the job of the executive branch to figure out how to implement those laws and statutes via the rulemaking and regulatory process.

Anyone saying executive branch can't or shouldn't be involved in regulation has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Umm, wasn't that the point of this case? The executive branch was doing stuff it was never empowered to do in the first place.

No. The Executive Branch was doing exactly what it was empowered and required to do. This was a judicial overreach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really sad that there is such deep vitriol from conservatives towards government.

Why? Government makes things worse at every opportunity. Your dishwasher takes forever and does a worse job than it did 20 years ago due to dumb regulations. Same for your washing machine. CAFE standards are wasteful, among many other regulations that dramatically increase the costs of cars? No one wants a start-stop feature. Wonder how much those costs?

Dems look at the good regulations from a bygone era (e.g., catalytic converters) and think every future regulation must be similarly good. The truth is we captured most of the low-hanging fruit generations ago and can stop making things more costly in the name of "doing something."

50 years ago we went to the moon. Today, the government subcontracts with a company that can't even return a vehicle from space. It's pathetic. Who would trust the same government to regulate something as complex as the economy?

Republicans are incredibly shortsighted and take all of the good government does for granted. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/19/1813943/-A-DAY-IN-THE-LIFE-OF-JOE-REPUBLICAN

None of those things happen due to corporate altruism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a twist of irony: will removal of the Chevron deference necessitate a big expansion of government?

If the Judiciary intends to become a policymaking body, they will likely need to build out a deep bench of policy experts that are “loyal” to judges.

Ever consider that the federal government isn’t supposed to be doing all of this shit in the first place?

The legislature passes laws and statutes, and it is the job of the executive branch to figure out how to implement those laws and statutes via the rulemaking and regulatory process.

Anyone saying executive branch can't or shouldn't be involved in regulation has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Umm, wasn't that the point of this case? The executive branch was doing stuff it was never empowered to do in the first place.

Because the founding fathers could anticipate environmental impacts of data centers? Or particulate density in certain drugs?

You don't seem to understand this case. Data centers or drugs are not relevant.

You do not seem to understand the ruling. All federal regulations are gone. This will remove the speed limit on federal highways, fishing regulations- no limit on commercial or retail harvesting, endangered species act, no restrictions on drilling in federal water in Florida, migrating waterfowl can now be harvested with no limits, airplanes can fly any route, lead in cosmetics in okay, OSHA standards gone, food labeling law gone, baby formula with arsenic, no restrictions on drug manufacturers, etc.

Let’s all about Drug Scheduling laws. Clear the federal government has no power to restrict drugs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a twist of irony: will removal of the Chevron deference necessitate a big expansion of government?

If the Judiciary intends to become a policymaking body, they will likely need to build out a deep bench of policy experts that are “loyal” to judges.

Ever consider that the federal government isn’t supposed to be doing all of this shit in the first place?

The legislature passes laws and statutes, and it is the job of the executive branch to figure out how to implement those laws and statutes via the rulemaking and regulatory process.

Anyone saying executive branch can't or shouldn't be involved in regulation has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Umm, wasn't that the point of this case? The executive branch was doing stuff it was never empowered to do in the first place.

Because the founding fathers could anticipate environmental impacts of data centers? Or particulate density in certain drugs?

You don't seem to understand this case. Data centers or drugs are not relevant.

You do not seem to understand the ruling. All federal regulations are gone. This will remove the speed limit on federal highways, fishing regulations- no limit on commercial or retail harvesting, endangered species act, no restrictions on drilling in federal water in Florida, migrating waterfowl can now be harvested with no limits, airplanes can fly any route, lead in cosmetics in okay, OSHA standards gone, food labeling law gone, baby formula with arsenic, no restrictions on drug manufacturers, etc.

Let’s all about Drug Scheduling laws. Clear the federal government has no power to restrict drugs.

LOL. Control of speed limits on federal highways was returned to the states by an act of Congress in 1995. Try harder to come up with your strawmen arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a twist of irony: will removal of the Chevron deference necessitate a big expansion of government?

If the Judiciary intends to become a policymaking body, they will likely need to build out a deep bench of policy experts that are “loyal” to judges.

Ever consider that the federal government isn’t supposed to be doing all of this shit in the first place?

The legislature passes laws and statutes, and it is the job of the executive branch to figure out how to implement those laws and statutes via the rulemaking and regulatory process.

Anyone saying executive branch can't or shouldn't be involved in regulation has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Umm, wasn't that the point of this case? The executive branch was doing stuff it was never empowered to do in the first place.

Because the founding fathers could anticipate environmental impacts of data centers? Or particulate density in certain drugs?

You don't seem to understand this case. Data centers or drugs are not relevant.

You do not seem to understand the ruling. All federal regulations are gone. This will remove the speed limit on federal highways, fishing regulations- no limit on commercial or retail harvesting, endangered species act, no restrictions on drilling in federal water in Florida, migrating waterfowl can now be harvested with no limits, airplanes can fly any route, lead in cosmetics in okay, OSHA standards gone, food labeling law gone, baby formula with arsenic, no restrictions on drug manufacturers, etc.

Let’s all about Drug Scheduling laws. Clear the federal government has no power to restrict drugs.

LOL. Control of speed limits on federal highways was returned to the states by an act of Congress in 1995. Try harder to come up with your strawmen arguments.

The speed limit is set by the federal Government by restricting Federal Highway money to states. This was done during the oil crisis in the 1970’s. Just like DUI laws were forced on the states.