Bye-bye Chevron

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In case you haven't noticed, this isn't the 1970s anymore. You should do a little research instead of embarrassing yourself in public.

[Anonymous]

Good bye abortion pills. A conservative's dream: Jesus, guns, babies, no regulations, no taxes. If only Trump has not won in 2016. Welcome to the nightmare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good bye abortion pills. A conservative's dream: Jesus, guns, babies, no regulations, no taxes. If only Trump has not won in 2016. Welcome to the nightmare.

Trump said last night he was fine with abortion pills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good bye abortion pills. A conservative's dream: Jesus, guns, babies, no regulations, no taxes. If only Trump has not won in 2016. Welcome to the nightmare.

Trump said last night he was fine with abortion pills.

Yeah, sure.

[Anonymous]

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

Well, I'm going to guess you never studied the Constitution in law school.
This ruling does not make Judges the new policymakers. It just restricts unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats from making laws (regulations that have the force of law) according to their own interpretation of enacted laws. The Constitution (and writings of the Founding Fathers) is very specific in the need to have law and policy makers accountable to the electors. I fail to understand how anyone would support a large bureaucratic state that can create regulations with the force of law and punish the people with no accountability or recourse from those being punished. These regulations, unlike enacted law, and bureaucrats are not accountable to the people; the vast majority cannot be changed through an election (yes, that is the “Deep State”). This is paired with Jarkesy, where a bureaucratic agency can establish regulations and try and convict a person with its own “judge” and no representation from the person being convicted. That process is blatantly unconstitutional, it strips the Congress of its enumerated powers and the People of their Due Rights protections in favor of bureaucratic “efficiency”. Yes, it handcuffs the government from regulating people and corporations by forcing them to do things the Constitutional way and limits their ability to pad their coffers with regulation violations, but that is fully within the scope of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers for a limited government. This was the right decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good bye abortion pills. A conservative's dream: Jesus, guns, babies, no regulations, no taxes. If only Trump has not won in 2016. Welcome to the nightmare.

God I hope so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If history remains true to form, YES.

[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

Well, I'm going to guess you never studied the Constitution in law school.
This ruling does not make Judges the new policymakers. It just restricts unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats from making laws (regulations that have the force of law) according to their own interpretation of enacted laws. The Constitution (and writings of the Founding Fathers) is very specific in the need to have law and policy makers accountable to the electors. I fail to understand how anyone would support a large bureaucratic state that can create regulations with the force of law and punish the people with no accountability or recourse from those being punished. These regulations, unlike enacted law, and bureaucrats are not accountable to the people; the vast majority cannot be changed through an election (yes, that is the “Deep State”). This is paired with Jarkesy, where a bureaucratic agency can establish regulations and try and convict a person with its own “judge” and no representation from the person being convicted. That process is blatantly unconstitutional, it strips the Congress of its enumerated powers and the People of their Due Rights protections in favor of bureaucratic “efficiency”. Yes, it handcuffs the government from regulating people and corporations by forcing them to do things the Constitutional way and limits their ability to pad their coffers with regulation violations, but that is fully within the scope of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers for a limited government. This was the right decision.

The bolded section is exactly why the left hates this decision.

[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

Well, I'm going to guess you never studied the Constitution in law school.
This ruling does not make Judges the new policymakers. It just restricts unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats from making laws (regulations that have the force of law) according to their own interpretation of enacted laws. The Constitution (and writings of the Founding Fathers) is very specific in the need to have law and policy makers accountable to the electors. I fail to understand how anyone would support a large bureaucratic state that can create regulations with the force of law and punish the people with no accountability or recourse from those being punished. These regulations, unlike enacted law, and bureaucrats are not accountable to the people; the vast majority cannot be changed through an election (yes, that is the “Deep State”). This is paired with Jarkesy, where a bureaucratic agency can establish regulations and try and convict a person with its own “judge” and no representation from the person being convicted. That process is blatantly unconstitutional, it strips the Congress of its enumerated powers and the People of their Due Rights protections in favor of bureaucratic “efficiency”. Yes, it handcuffs the government from regulating people and corporations by forcing them to do things the Constitutional way and limits their ability to pad their coffers with regulation violations, but that is fully within the scope of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers for a limited government. This was the right decision.

The bolded section is exactly why the left hates this decision.

A few thoughts:
1. Judges are unelected elites. And they hold their position for life. Truly, they are more akin to American Royalists.

2. Federal agencies are staffed by unelected individuals - that's true. But they are overseen by agency leaders that are appointed by the President. These leaders overturn when the voters elect a new President. The federal agencies are more responsive to electoral change than the Royal Unelected Judges.

3. Federal agencies are required to issue for notice and comment any regulations they issue. This is required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies must publicly address comment suggestions from the public. Further, agencies change regulations all the time in response to public comment. This is direct democracy in action - the public comments and the executive branch agencies must respond. Federal judges do not have to consider any public comments at all. No need to respond or use for deliberation.

In short, unelected judges who went to law school and have zero experience with myriad technical issues will be the apex policy deciders in areas where Congressional laws are ambiguous. This is profoundly dangerous. In addition, American citizens have lost a key ability to influence policy - (1) through election of the President and (2) the ability to comment on regulations issued by the Executive. A judge now has the ability to overrule all that on a whim, unless he is overruled by a court. And it costs money to appeal a court decision.

Very bad day for the United States and its citizens. Power has been grabbed by a small clique of elite law school graduates from the American voter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Well, I'm going to guess you never studied the Constitution in law school.
This ruling does not make Judges the new policymakers. It just restricts unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats from making laws (regulations that have the force of law) according to their own interpretation of enacted laws. The Constitution (and writings of the Founding Fathers) is very specific in the need to have law and policy makers accountable to the electors. I fail to understand how anyone would support a large bureaucratic state that can create regulations with the force of law and punish the people with no accountability or recourse from those being punished. These regulations, unlike enacted law, and bureaucrats are not accountable to the people; the vast majority cannot be changed through an election (yes, that is the “Deep State”). This is paired with Jarkesy, where a bureaucratic agency can establish regulations and try and convict a person with its own “judge” and no representation from the person being convicted. That process is blatantly unconstitutional, it strips the Congress of its enumerated powers and the People of their Due Rights protections in favor of bureaucratic “efficiency”. Yes, it handcuffs the government from regulating people and corporations by forcing them to do things the Constitutional way and limits their ability to pad their coffers with regulation violations, but that is fully within the scope of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers for a limited government. This was the right decision.

The bolded section is exactly why the left hates this decision.

A few thoughts:
1. Judges are unelected elites. And they hold their position for life. Truly, they are more akin to American Royalists.

2. Federal agencies are staffed by unelected individuals - that's true. But they are overseen by agency leaders that are appointed by the President. These leaders overturn when the voters elect a new President. The federal agencies are more responsive to electoral change than the Royal Unelected Judges.

3. Federal agencies are required to issue for notice and comment any regulations they issue. This is required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies must publicly address comment suggestions from the public. Further, agencies change regulations all the time in response to public comment. This is direct democracy in action - the public comments and the executive branch agencies must respond. Federal judges do not have to consider any public comments at all. No need to respond or use for deliberation.

In short, unelected judges who went to law school and have zero experience with myriad technical issues will be the apex policy deciders in areas where Congressional laws are ambiguous. This is profoundly dangerous. In addition, American citizens have lost a key ability to influence policy - (1) through election of the President and (2) the ability to comment on regulations issued by the Executive. A judge now has the ability to overrule all that on a whim, unless he is overruled by a court. And it costs money to appeal a court decision.

Very bad day for the United States and its citizens. Power has been grabbed by a small clique of elite law school graduates from the American voter.

Wow every point you just made about why you think this is bad solidifies why I am voting for Trump.

Do you not understand we are tired of bureaucrats run amok and mob rule?

Bravo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Well, I'm going to guess you never studied the Constitution in law school.
This ruling does not make Judges the new policymakers. It just restricts unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats from making laws (regulations that have the force of law) according to their own interpretation of enacted laws. The Constitution (and writings of the Founding Fathers) is very specific in the need to have law and policy makers accountable to the electors. I fail to understand how anyone would support a large bureaucratic state that can create regulations with the force of law and punish the people with no accountability or recourse from those being punished. These regulations, unlike enacted law, and bureaucrats are not accountable to the people; the vast majority cannot be changed through an election (yes, that is the “Deep State”). This is paired with Jarkesy, where a bureaucratic agency can establish regulations and try and convict a person with its own “judge” and no representation from the person being convicted. That process is blatantly unconstitutional, it strips the Congress of its enumerated powers and the People of their Due Rights protections in favor of bureaucratic “efficiency”. Yes, it handcuffs the government from regulating people and corporations by forcing them to do things the Constitutional way and limits their ability to pad their coffers with regulation violations, but that is fully within the scope of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers for a limited government. This was the right decision.

The bolded section is exactly why the left hates this decision.

A few thoughts:
1. Judges are unelected elites. And they hold their position for life. Truly, they are more akin to American Royalists.

2. Federal agencies are staffed by unelected individuals - that's true. But they are overseen by agency leaders that are appointed by the President. These leaders overturn when the voters elect a new President. The federal agencies are more responsive to electoral change than the Royal Unelected Judges.

3. Federal agencies are required to issue for notice and comment any regulations they issue. This is required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies must publicly address comment suggestions from the public. Further, agencies change regulations all the time in response to public comment. This is direct democracy in action - the public comments and the executive branch agencies must respond. Federal judges do not have to consider any public comments at all. No need to respond or use for deliberation.

In short, unelected judges who went to law school and have zero experience with myriad technical issues will be the apex policy deciders in areas where Congressional laws are ambiguous. This is profoundly dangerous. In addition, American citizens have lost a key ability to influence policy - (1) through election of the President and (2) the ability to comment on regulations issued by the Executive. A judge now has the ability to overrule all that on a whim, unless he is overruled by a court. And it costs money to appeal a court decision.

Very bad day for the United States and its citizens. Power has been grabbed by a small clique of elite law school graduates from the American voter.

Wow every point you just made about why you think this is bad solidifies why I am voting for Trump.

Do you not understand we are tired of bureaucrats run amok and mob rule?

Bravo.

So you support Unelected Royalist judges?

I'm sure you would've been a Red Coat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Well, I'm going to guess you never studied the Constitution in law school.
This ruling does not make Judges the new policymakers. It just restricts unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats from making laws (regulations that have the force of law) according to their own interpretation of enacted laws. The Constitution (and writings of the Founding Fathers) is very specific in the need to have law and policy makers accountable to the electors. I fail to understand how anyone would support a large bureaucratic state that can create regulations with the force of law and punish the people with no accountability or recourse from those being punished. These regulations, unlike enacted law, and bureaucrats are not accountable to the people; the vast majority cannot be changed through an election (yes, that is the “Deep State”). This is paired with Jarkesy, where a bureaucratic agency can establish regulations and try and convict a person with its own “judge” and no representation from the person being convicted. That process is blatantly unconstitutional, it strips the Congress of its enumerated powers and the People of their Due Rights protections in favor of bureaucratic “efficiency”. Yes, it handcuffs the government from regulating people and corporations by forcing them to do things the Constitutional way and limits their ability to pad their coffers with regulation violations, but that is fully within the scope of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers for a limited government. This was the right decision.

The bolded section is exactly why the left hates this decision.

A few thoughts:
1. Judges are unelected elites. And they hold their position for life. Truly, they are more akin to American Royalists.

2. Federal agencies are staffed by unelected individuals - that's true. But they are overseen by agency leaders that are appointed by the President. These leaders overturn when the voters elect a new President. The federal agencies are more responsive to electoral change than the Royal Unelected Judges.

3. Federal agencies are required to issue for notice and comment any regulations they issue. This is required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies must publicly address comment suggestions from the public. Further, agencies change regulations all the time in response to public comment. This is direct democracy in action - the public comments and the executive branch agencies must respond. Federal judges do not have to consider any public comments at all. No need to respond or use for deliberation.

In short, unelected judges who went to law school and have zero experience with myriad technical issues will be the apex policy deciders in areas where Congressional laws are ambiguous. This is profoundly dangerous. In addition, American citizens have lost a key ability to influence policy - (1) through election of the President and (2) the ability to comment on regulations issued by the Executive. A judge now has the ability to overrule all that on a whim, unless he is overruled by a court. And it costs money to appeal a court decision.

Very bad day for the United States and its citizens. Power has been grabbed by a small clique of elite law school graduates from the American voter.

Wow every point you just made about why you think this is bad solidifies why I am voting for Trump.

Do you not understand we are tired of bureaucrats run amok and mob rule?

Bravo.

DP. If you object to the mission of agencies, then the problem isn't the regulations that agencies come up with to enact the laws given them by the legislation, it's the legislators who are writing these laws. You can communicate with legislators or you can vote them out. That is a better solution to your objection than taking the reins from agencies with expertise to courts without expertise.

[Anonymous]

Tell me, how does this not have unintended consequences.

For example, let's say there is a contentious drug approval for company X. Company Y is a competitor. Why wouldn't Y just go find a court where they can sue to remove the approval for X's drug because they can argue that X didn't meet the requirements and some judge will overturn the approval and block X from selling? It will turn into a massive S show for innovation, and companies could use the courts to block their competitors from selling things on the market by trying to manipulate the law through some highly unqualified judge who knows nothing about technical issues.

[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.

The court in 1984 said it did.

The Federalist Society and billionaires wanting to rape consumers and make money, infused a court with partisans and undid 40 years of precedent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Well, I'm going to guess you never studied the Constitution in law school.
This ruling does not make Judges the new policymakers. It just restricts unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats from making laws (regulations that have the force of law) according to their own interpretation of enacted laws. The Constitution (and writings of the Founding Fathers) is very specific in the need to have law and policy makers accountable to the electors. I fail to understand how anyone would support a large bureaucratic state that can create regulations with the force of law and punish the people with no accountability or recourse from those being punished. These regulations, unlike enacted law, and bureaucrats are not accountable to the people; the vast majority cannot be changed through an election (yes, that is the “Deep State”). This is paired with Jarkesy, where a bureaucratic agency can establish regulations and try and convict a person with its own “judge” and no representation from the person being convicted. That process is blatantly unconstitutional, it strips the Congress of its enumerated powers and the People of their Due Rights protections in favor of bureaucratic “efficiency”. Yes, it handcuffs the government from regulating people and corporations by forcing them to do things the Constitutional way and limits their ability to pad their coffers with regulation violations, but that is fully within the scope of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers for a limited government. This was the right decision.

The bolded section is exactly why the left hates this decision.

A few thoughts:
1. Judges are unelected elites. And they hold their position for life. Truly, they are more akin to American Royalists.

2. Federal agencies are staffed by unelected individuals - that's true. But they are overseen by agency leaders that are appointed by the President. These leaders overturn when the voters elect a new President. The federal agencies are more responsive to electoral change than the Royal Unelected Judges.

3. Federal agencies are required to issue for notice and comment any regulations they issue. This is required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies must publicly address comment suggestions from the public. Further, agencies change regulations all the time in response to public comment. This is direct democracy in action - the public comments and the executive branch agencies must respond. Federal judges do not have to consider any public comments at all. No need to respond or use for deliberation.

In short, unelected judges who went to law school and have zero experience with myriad technical issues will be the apex policy deciders in areas where Congressional laws are ambiguous. This is profoundly dangerous. In addition, American citizens have lost a key ability to influence policy - (1) through election of the President and (2) the ability to comment on regulations issued by the Executive. A judge now has the ability to overrule all that on a whim, unless he is overruled by a court. And it costs money to appeal a court decision.

Very bad day for the United States and its citizens. Power has been grabbed by a small clique of elite law school graduates from the American voter.

Wow every point you just made about why you think this is bad solidifies why I am voting for Trump.

Do you not understand we are tired of bureaucrats run amok and mob rule?

Bravo.

So you support Unelected Royalist judges?

I'm sure you would've been a Red Coat.

Better than your unelected puppet master bureaucrats.