Bye-bye Chevron

[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.

Uh, everything is impacted by this decision...anything the government writes rules for after the Congress passes and law.

I don't think YOU seem to understand this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yup.

It's also going to cause chaos in patent laws, securities laws, consumer safety, healthcare, etc. It will likely destroy American commerce for good because companies and individuals will need to contend with 50 states of conflicting regulation. If anything, the downfall of Chevron will only make California and New York more powerful.

And Texas will become an open-air laboratory for companies to test out their products in real time on a clueless population with no oversight. If a bunch of people die in Texas from some quack pill approved by a rogue judge, oh well.

[Anonymous]

They hate regulation and this helps make it nearly imposible to regulate anything.

[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.

But he will sign a law passed by a GOP congress banning them.

[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.

So you think the likes of Jim Jordan or Lauren Boebert or even Jamie Raskin have the expertise to get into the minutia or rulemaking at this granular level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

As someone who works in the government, YES!!! I have a complete disdain for the government the US has become. It is exactly why our Founding Fathers attempted to create a Limited Government. Governments should not rule people's lives, but only be there for protection. All political parties have corrupted the government through its expansion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Stop blabbering. Federal agencies staff cannot do anything without the approval of their President-appointed leader(s). You've bought into a narrative without doing even 5 minutes of independent thinking.

[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.

So you think the likes of Jim Jordan or Lauren Boebert or even Jamie Raskin have the expertise to get into the minutia or rulemaking at this granular level?

Individually, no one person does. That is why there are 535 of them with knowledgeable staffs.

[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.

Judges appointed by presidents who couldn't even capture a popular vote win are literally a tyranny of the minority. Talk about Mob Rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Stop blabbering. Federal agencies staff cannot do anything without the approval of their President-appointed leader(s). You've bought into a narrative without doing even 5 minutes of independent thinking.

You do not work in a Federal agency. Most regulations are approved before the political appointee level.

[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.

So you think the likes of Jim Jordan or Lauren Boebert or even Jamie Raskin have the expertise to get into the minutia or rulemaking at this granular level?

Individually, no one person does. That is why there are 535 of them with knowledgeable staffs.

Somehow, those 500-some+staff cannot seem to handle their traditional duties of drafting legislation, let alone drafting regulations implementing that legislation.

We get it, you think the government is too big. You have no idea how big the government is, bub.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Stop blabbering. Federal agencies staff cannot do anything without the approval of their President-appointed leader(s). You've bought into a narrative without doing even 5 minutes of independent thinking.

The bolded part is why this is a good thing and you scumbags hate this decision.

You appoint extreme leftists to these positions to drive insane agendas.

America is waking up to your bs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Stop blabbering. Federal agencies staff cannot do anything without the approval of their President-appointed leader(s). You've bought into a narrative without doing even 5 minutes of independent thinking.

You do not work in a Federal agency. Most regulations are approved before the political appointee level.

Omg. You're nuts. I have worked for 3 federal agencies. Proposed and final regulations cannot be published in the Federal Register without the approval of the appointed head(s) of those agencies. And those regulations must be tied to specific and listed statutory authorities approved into law by Congress and the President.

[Anonymous]

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

As someone who works in the government, YES!!! I have a complete disdain for the government the US has become. It is exactly why our Founding Fathers attempted to create a Limited Government. Governments should not rule people's lives, but only be there for protection. All political parties have corrupted the government through its expansion.


The founding fathers also never anticipated the size and population of the United States as it evolved, nor the technical innovation and evolution since 1790.

A limited government is great when there are around 4 million people spread across the original colonies/states. The country is a little bigger than that now, and a lot more complicated given technology and other advancements in the intervening 250 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Stop blabbering. Federal agencies staff cannot do anything without the approval of their President-appointed leader(s). You've bought into a narrative without doing even 5 minutes of independent thinking.

The bolded part is why this is a good thing and you scumbags hate this decision.

You appoint extreme leftists to these positions to drive insane agendas.

America is waking up to your bs.

Guess who those leaders were when DJT, GWB, GHWB, and Reagan were President...they were not "extreme leftists." And they changed regulations in line with their President's policy preferences.