Bye-bye Chevron
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
The delusions of grandeur are very telling but not surprising. |
Anonymous
Yeah, eff them women. They don’t need full citizenship anyhow. Let the Talibangelicals tell them what to do with their lives; it’s working out great for their friends in Afghanistan. |
Anonymous
|
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Let’s be real. The FDA is funded and controlled by Big Pharma. Big AG controls the department of agriculture. And the SEC is run by a bunch of ex bankers.
So please stop acting like these bureaucrats are independent. What the court did is say if something is to be controlled and regulated, congress should pass legislation that does so. And that the courts will determine whether someone is adhering to the laws as set by congress. We live in a representative republic. Thinking unelected bureaucrats (many of which are owned by the very ppl they are meant to regulate) should make laws and regulations governing US citizens. Is supremely undemocratic[/quote] This was the best SC decision I have seen in decades. [/quote] Agreed. I miss Ohio rivers catching fire and Thalidomide babies. Make America Great![/quote] Americans will have no protection against pollution and toxins. Doing away with the Chevron deference standard will harm Americans so that the wealthiest can become wealthier.[/quote] Nah. The answer has always been and will always be make Congress do more and be better. Anything else is anti-Constitutional and at odds with our form of government. Those who think bureaucrats are the answer hate the American way of life. Turf defending bureaucrats are as problematic as corporate lobbyists but they are way less scrutinized. Allowing them to inbed on Committees on the Hill is a terrible practice. I can remember when John Dingle almost killed an Exec Branch Agency staffer who came up onto his dias to try to influence an outcome. That is how it should be. The reg state has been a boon to law firms and consultants and the twits about this town but it’s hurt us in countless other ways. Its to make Congress invest in the talent, technology and take accountability. Write a stupid law and the press should dig in and cover it. Idiot Members who turn money back in to be “frugal” should be fired. Congress needs to massively up its game, period. Otherwise, we can can the Constitution. Wilson was wrong about everything from his racism to his views against representative government. This all goes back to his bad ideas. Good riddance. [/quote] The irony in all this is that Chevron deference was created by the Republican Supreme Court who - at the time - were concerned about lower-court liberal judges implementing their own reading of ambiguous statutes. So the conservatives on the court created the Chevron deference in order to constrain liberal judges and empower the executive branch agencies (at the time controlled by the Reagan administration). And of course who can forget Justice Scalia’s love of Chevron! https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3075&context=dlj&te=1&nl=the-morning&emc=edit_nn_20240118 The trashing of Chevron is just the elite clique of Republican/FedSoc lawyers moving the goal posts to advantage themselves once again. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. [/quote] Stevens, Burger, Brennan, Blackmun, White, and Powell doesn’t quite sound like an army of Conservative jurists to me. [/quote] 3 justices appointed by Nixon + 1 appointed by Ford were not “conservative”? Weird take, bro. [/quote] DP probably was not aware that before the current illegitimate SCOTUS, justices actually made decisions based on the law, not what their bribers tell them. [/quote] I think it’s just a glaring example of how far “conservative” ideology has veered so far to the right relative to the 1970s and 80s. They think the Nixon appointed SC are apostates for the Chevron decision. The ahistorical ideological incoherence is amazing. [/quote] Why? They're putting the unelected administrative bureaucratic state in check. I personally LOVE IT. The nonsense is out of hand. The EPA declaring carbon dioxide is a "pollutant"? Yeah, whatever.[/quote] Mm-hmm. And climate change is just a greenie issue, not an issue that we are all dealing with already, today. Gotcha.[/quote] He typed this as his AC is working to the point of imploding. But it's all fine. [/quote] I think an office of unelected nanny-state administrative-busy-bodies just got told to stand down and not to turn their feel-good opinions into legislation. Many office dwellers in DC may lose their funding. The horror.[/quote] Who have the gumption to think their “ends” justify their “means” regardless of the Constitutional order. [/quote] Not to worry, they will throw the Constitution in your face when it comes to banning abortion tho[/quote] There is no constitutional right to abortion. I don’t disagree with abortion rights but it is an issue that needs a process to be dealt with. A process the Constitution provides. [/quote] And where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people and money is free speech? |
Anonymous
|
I’m hoping we can get washing machines that wash clothes with water in under 2 hours, toilets that actually flush, dishwashers that take less than an hour and a half and gas water heaters.
And also, versions of all those appliances that don’t break down and have to be replaced in 2.5 years. |
Anonymous
What you just said has nothing to do with whether there is a Constitutional right to abortion. Sorry but not every issue was identified at the time of the founding of this country. Furthermore, hey Harry, didn’t you represent the Mayo Clinic, you write the opinion doesn’t make a lot of sense either. |
Anonymous
|
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Let’s be real. The FDA is funded and controlled by Big Pharma. Big AG controls the department of agriculture. And the SEC is run by a bunch of ex bankers.
So please stop acting like these bureaucrats are independent. What the court did is say if something is to be controlled and regulated, congress should pass legislation that does so. And that the courts will determine whether someone is adhering to the laws as set by congress. We live in a representative republic. Thinking unelected bureaucrats (many of which are owned by the very ppl they are meant to regulate) should make laws and regulations governing US citizens. Is supremely undemocratic[/quote] This was the best SC decision I have seen in decades. [/quote] Agreed. I miss Ohio rivers catching fire and Thalidomide babies. Make America Great![/quote] Americans will have no protection against pollution and toxins. Doing away with the Chevron deference standard will harm Americans so that the wealthiest can become wealthier.[/quote] Nah. The answer has always been and will always be make Congress do more and be better. Anything else is anti-Constitutional and at odds with our form of government. Those who think bureaucrats are the answer hate the American way of life. Turf defending bureaucrats are as problematic as corporate lobbyists but they are way less scrutinized. Allowing them to inbed on Committees on the Hill is a terrible practice. I can remember when John Dingle almost killed an Exec Branch Agency staffer who came up onto his dias to try to influence an outcome. That is how it should be. The reg state has been a boon to law firms and consultants and the twits about this town but it’s hurt us in countless other ways. Its to make Congress invest in the talent, technology and take accountability. Write a stupid law and the press should dig in and cover it. Idiot Members who turn money back in to be “frugal” should be fired. Congress needs to massively up its game, period. Otherwise, we can can the Constitution. Wilson was wrong about everything from his racism to his views against representative government. This all goes back to his bad ideas. Good riddance. [/quote] The irony in all this is that Chevron deference was created by the Republican Supreme Court who - at the time - were concerned about lower-court liberal judges implementing their own reading of ambiguous statutes. So the conservatives on the court created the Chevron deference in order to constrain liberal judges and empower the executive branch agencies (at the time controlled by the Reagan administration). And of course who can forget Justice Scalia’s love of Chevron! https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3075&context=dlj&te=1&nl=the-morning&emc=edit_nn_20240118 The trashing of Chevron is just the elite clique of Republican/FedSoc lawyers moving the goal posts to advantage themselves once again. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. [/quote] Stevens, Burger, Brennan, Blackmun, White, and Powell doesn’t quite sound like an army of Conservative jurists to me. [/quote] 3 justices appointed by Nixon + 1 appointed by Ford were not “conservative”? Weird take, bro. [/quote] DP probably was not aware that before the current illegitimate SCOTUS, justices actually made decisions based on the law, not what their bribers tell them. [/quote] I think it’s just a glaring example of how far “conservative” ideology has veered so far to the right relative to the 1970s and 80s. They think the Nixon appointed SC are apostates for the Chevron decision. The ahistorical ideological incoherence is amazing. [/quote] Why? They're putting the unelected administrative bureaucratic state in check. I personally LOVE IT. The nonsense is out of hand. The EPA declaring carbon dioxide is a "pollutant"? Yeah, whatever.[/quote] Mm-hmm. And climate change is just a greenie issue, not an issue that we are all dealing with already, today. Gotcha.[/quote] He typed this as his AC is working to the point of imploding. But it's all fine. [/quote] I think an office of unelected nanny-state administrative-busy-bodies just got told to stand down and not to turn their feel-good opinions into legislation. Many office dwellers in DC may lose their funding. The horror.[/quote] Who have the gumption to think their “ends” justify their “means” regardless of the Constitutional order. [/quote] Not to worry, they will throw the Constitution in your face when it comes to banning abortion tho[/quote] There is no constitutional right to abortion. I don’t disagree with abortion rights but it is an issue that needs a process to be dealt with. A process the Constitution provides. [/quote] And where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people and money is free speech? [/quote] We know a lot more about how to deal with free speech from the Framer’s perspective than abortion. But you knew that and it doesn’t matter to you. |
Anonymous
| Can you hit the post reply button instead of cutting and pasting quoted text into quick reply. It's becoming unreadable. |
Anonymous
where are you writing from? some lost tribe in the Amazon? rural Botswana? I have all those things, my water-saving toilets flush perfectly, all appliances are Star-rated and older than 2.5 and still going strong. |
Anonymous
There is no constitutionally grounded role for government intervention in women's healthcare. |
Anonymous
Here's a thought. The more you use the word democracy, the more we know you mean just tyranny. East Germany was called the GDR. The German Democratic Republic. It was anything but. North Korea is called the DPRK. The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. It is anything but. See a pattern yet? Try sloganeering a little less and read Animal Farm and 1984 by George Orwell. You might learn something. We hate democracy. pffft. 
|
Anonymous
You do hate democracy. The GOP has shown their contempt for democracy in the thousand times they’ve restricted voting rights, culled voter lists, sent implied threats to people with Latino last names, subverted the will of the voters and ignored what elected Democrats have decided to do (which of Carolinas was that…) and tried to overthrow the government. Project 2025 promises to end democracy fully and either Republicans play dumb about it, are dumb about it or embrace it wholeheartedly. And Chevron? IANAL but it seems it’s the activist right wing Supreme Court wresting control. They are corrupt and lawless, re-writing laws to suit their fascist purposes. |
Anonymous
The whining bureaucrats around here match the whiny Trump. Good riddance to all of you. |
Anonymous
Not everyone is wealthy and can afford the most expensive appliances available with all the bells and whistles. Which is the point, decades of over regulation established under an unconstitutional system following Chevron where a small group of unelected wealthy bureaucrats made such features unattainable to the vast majority of people. Let’s use toilets as an example: Regulators required all toilets to be “green” low-flow toilets. High end toilets were already low-flow, so none of you had a problem in your mansion, but those were expensive, far more complicated toilets that were priced out of range of most typical consumers. Now that every house HAD to have low-flow toilets, this required companies to retool their market share to include low and medium end low-flow toilets. And because of the greater complexity of these toilets (when compared to standard toilets), they were now more expensive, and less functional, then previous budget toilets, all for a ‘benefit’ that was, while legitimate, highly marginal in nature. |
Anonymous
Please stop trying to spin Trump's idiotic comments about having to flush the toilet "10 or 15 times." |
Anonymous
| As of today, all medication is effective illegal. Boomers, say bye to your Lipitor |