Bye-bye Chevron

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Please stop trying to spin Trump's idiotic comments about having to flush the toilet "10 or 15 times."

Where was I trying to spin anything Trump said?

I understand that the top-of-the-line, $14,000 low flow toilet in your McMansion works great. Tell that to the family who lives month to month whose toilet breaks and are told they now have to purchase an expensive $1000 toilet that does not even flush properly, and does not even have the opportunity to go with the tried and true traditional option because some Whiney unelected bureaucrat has decided that some minuscule and vague, largely under-analyzed environmental impact that traditional design may have.

There is no place in a democracy for that crap. If these bureaucrats truly believe forcing everyone to buy expensive luxury products is justified by the environmental impacts, they can stand before Congress and convince them that this is justified despite the massive impact such a decision will have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Please stop trying to spin Trump's idiotic comments about having to flush the toilet "10 or 15 times."

Where was I trying to spin anything Trump said?

I understand that the top-of-the-line, $14,000 low flow toilet in your McMansion works great. Tell that to the family who lives month to month whose toilet breaks and are told they now have to purchase an expensive $1000 toilet that does not even flush properly, and does not even have the opportunity to go with the tried and true traditional option because some Whiney unelected bureaucrat has decided that some minuscule and vague, largely under-analyzed environmental impact that traditional design may have.

There is no place in a democracy for that crap. If these bureaucrats truly believe forcing everyone to buy expensive luxury products is justified by the environmental impacts, they can stand before Congress and convince them that this is justified despite the massive impact such a decision will have.

What are you babbling about?

Here’s a low flow toilet for $99
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Glacier-Bay-12-inch-Rough-In-Two-Piece-1-1-GPF-1-6-GPF-Dual-Flush-Elongated-Toilet-in-White-Seat-Included-N2316/100676582


I counted at least 15 low flow toilets under $200 (I stopped counting at 15)

The entire Chevron regime was decided by a Republican Supreme Court! Scalia loved Chevron because it took power out of the hands of liberal judges who were interpreting ambiguous statutes.

[Anonymous]

It will be very entertaining to watch Boebert, Green and Jordan try to legislate with enough particularity that the regs under IRC 704(b) relating to substantial economic effect are unnecessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Please stop trying to spin Trump's idiotic comments about having to flush the toilet "10 or 15 times."

Where was I trying to spin anything Trump said?

I understand that the top-of-the-line, $14,000 low flow toilet in your McMansion works great. Tell that to the family who lives month to month whose toilet breaks and are told they now have to purchase an expensive $1000 toilet that does not even flush properly, and does not even have the opportunity to go with the tried and true traditional option because some Whiney unelected bureaucrat has decided that some minuscule and vague, largely under-analyzed environmental impact that traditional design may have.

There is no place in a democracy for that crap. If these bureaucrats truly believe forcing everyone to buy expensive luxury products is justified by the environmental impacts, they can stand before Congress and convince them that this is justified despite the massive impact such a decision will have.

What are you babbling about?

Here’s a low flow toilet for $99
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Glacier-Bay-12-inch-Rough-In-Two-Piece-1-1-GPF-1-6-GPF-Dual-Flush-Elongated-Toilet-in-White-Seat-Included-N2316/100676582


I counted at least 15 low flow toilets under $200 (I stopped counting at 15)

The entire Chevron regime was decided by a Republican Supreme Court! Scalia loved Chevron because it took power out of the hands of liberal judges who were interpreting ambiguous statutes.

And those low flow toilets are basically junk that can barely flush piss down, let alone a huge log, compared to traditional toilets that could flush anything you could fit in the bowl at half the price. Because it was tried and true technology, not over-engineered and under-designed crap.

I am a centrist, I don’t care whether conservatives or liberals liked a ruling, I like common sense and the constitution, both of which Chevron (and, I hate to say it, Roe v Wade) flew in stark opposition to. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Please stop trying to spin Trump's idiotic comments about having to flush the toilet "10 or 15 times."

Where was I trying to spin anything Trump said?

I understand that the top-of-the-line, $14,000 low flow toilet in your McMansion works great. Tell that to the family who lives month to month whose toilet breaks and are told they now have to purchase an expensive $1000 toilet that does not even flush properly, and does not even have the opportunity to go with the tried and true traditional option because some Whiney unelected bureaucrat has decided that some minuscule and vague, largely under-analyzed environmental impact that traditional design may have.

There is no place in a democracy for that crap. If these bureaucrats truly believe forcing everyone to buy expensive luxury products is justified by the environmental impacts, they can stand before Congress and convince them that this is justified despite the massive impact such a decision will have.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Your post is INCREDIBLY out of touch with any and all reality whatsoever.

First of all, NO functioning low flow toilet requires "10 or 15 flushes." Regardless of whether it's a fancy one in a McMansion, or the cheapest one you can buy at your local home supply. Trump just flat-out LIED about that.

Second, NO, YOU ARE NOT BEING FORCED TO BUY TOILETS THAT COST $1000. Took me all of three seconds to find one for $99 at Lowes right now. https://www.lowes.com/pd/Project-Source-Pro-Flush-White-Dual-Flush-Elongated-Chair-Height-2-Piece-WaterSense-Toilet-12-in-Rough-In-Size-ADA-Compliant/5006032707

It's astounding to watch you trying to froth with indignation while being so utterly clueless. How does that even happen? Do you just blindly repeat whatever bullshit someone else told you without bothering to question any of it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Please stop trying to spin Trump's idiotic comments about having to flush the toilet "10 or 15 times."

Where was I trying to spin anything Trump said?

I understand that the top-of-the-line, $14,000 low flow toilet in your McMansion works great. Tell that to the family who lives month to month whose toilet breaks and are told they now have to purchase an expensive $1000 toilet that does not even flush properly, and does not even have the opportunity to go with the tried and true traditional option because some Whiney unelected bureaucrat has decided that some minuscule and vague, largely under-analyzed environmental impact that traditional design may have.

There is no place in a democracy for that crap. If these bureaucrats truly believe forcing everyone to buy expensive luxury products is justified by the environmental impacts, they can stand before Congress and convince them that this is justified despite the massive impact such a decision will have.

What are you babbling about?

Here’s a low flow toilet for $99
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Glacier-Bay-12-inch-Rough-In-Two-Piece-1-1-GPF-1-6-GPF-Dual-Flush-Elongated-Toilet-in-White-Seat-Included-N2316/100676582


I counted at least 15 low flow toilets under $200 (I stopped counting at 15)

The entire Chevron regime was decided by a Republican Supreme Court! Scalia loved Chevron because it took power out of the hands of liberal judges who were interpreting ambiguous statutes.

And those low flow toilets are basically junk that can barely flush piss down, let alone a huge log, compared to traditional toilets that could flush anything you could fit in the bowl at half the price. Because it was tried and true technology, not over-engineered and under-designed crap.

I am a centrist, I don’t care whether conservatives or liberals liked a ruling, I like common sense and the constitution, both of which Chevron (and, I hate to say it, Roe v Wade) flew in stark opposition to. Period.

Oh, baloney. You're just wrong. Provably so.

[Anonymous]

Say goodbye to any legislation ever passing again, if that clownshow of a Congress now has to be responsible for coming up with all of the details of how it's to be implemented.

[Anonymous]

This was the natural consequence of unelected bureaucrats seizing power and exercising control and consequences on the American people.

This is not their role. They absolutely needed to be reined in.

This case was about fishermen being forced to pay for observers on their vessels since observers are required.

The National Marine Fisheries Service stopped the monitoring in 2023 because of a lack of funding. While the program was in effect, the agency reimbursed fishermen for the costs of the observers. But, they started charging fishermen for the observers. So, the National Marine Fisheries Service requires observers, but in order to comply, the fisherman have to pay for them.

No. Stop with the unfunded mandates... especially when mandated by unelected bureaucrats.

[Anonymous]

For those who don't understand what Chevron Deference is, and why SCOTUS ended it, here's the long and short of it:

A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company.

The thing is, federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013.

Why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization?

Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law.

So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it.

It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country.

It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired.

No law gave them that authority, they just made it up.

It's how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a "machine gun".

It's how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a "protected wetlands".

It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the "experts".

Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go.

That's what Chevron Deference was.

It was not only blatantly unconstitutional, it caused immeasurable harm to everyone.

Thankfully, it's now gone.

We haven't even begun to feel the effects of this decision in the courts. It will be used, for years to come, to roll back federal agencies, and we'll all be better of for it.

And that's why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For those who don't understand what Chevron Deference is, and why SCOTUS ended it, here's the long and short of it:

A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company.

The thing is, federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013.

Why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization?

Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law.

So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it.

It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country.

It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired.

No law gave them that authority, they just made it up.

It's how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a "machine gun".

It's how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a "protected wetlands".

It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the "experts".

Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go.

That's what Chevron Deference was.

It was not only blatantly unconstitutional, it caused immeasurable harm to everyone.

Thankfully, it's now gone.

We haven't even begun to feel the effects of this decision in the courts. It will be used, for years to come, to roll back federal agencies, and we'll all be better of for it.

And that's why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it.

The Republicans in the 1980s created Chevron because they didn't like how liberal judges were interpreting ambiguities in statutes.

It's amazing to see conservatives completely ignore this history and become brain-eating zombies in the other direction. Agency experts making "reasonable" interpretations is what y'all wanted in 1984!

Here's Scalia's treatise on Chevron from 1989: https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/Judicial-Deference-to-Administrative-Interpretations-of-Law.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to any legislation ever passing again, if that clownshow of a Congress now has to be responsible for coming up with all of the details of how it's to be implemented.

We have enough legislation and too many bureaucrats.

AFUERA!!!

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

When baby fish are harvested before reproducing we have no fish. No more wild food. It’s tricky and it’s a pain for fishermen (based on size of fish).

That citizen funded program actually protects our food source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For those who don't understand what Chevron Deference is, and why SCOTUS ended it, here's the long and short of it:

A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company.

The thing is, federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013.

Why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization?

Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law.

So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it.

It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country.

It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired.

No law gave them that authority, they just made it up.

It's how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a "machine gun".

It's how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a "protected wetlands".

It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the "experts".

Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go.

That's what Chevron Deference was.

It was not only blatantly unconstitutional, it caused immeasurable harm to everyone.

Thankfully, it's now gone.

We haven't even begun to feel the effects of this decision in the courts. It will be used, for years to come, to roll back federal agencies, and we'll all be better of for it.

And that's why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it.

That’s a BINGO!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those who don't understand what Chevron Deference is, and why SCOTUS ended it, here's the long and short of it:

A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company.

The thing is, federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013.

Why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization?

Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law.

So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it.

It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country.

It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired.

No law gave them that authority, they just made it up.

It's how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a "machine gun".

It's how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a "protected wetlands".

It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the "experts".

Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go.

That's what Chevron Deference was.

It was not only blatantly unconstitutional, it caused immeasurable harm to everyone.

Thankfully, it's now gone.

We haven't even begun to feel the effects of this decision in the courts. It will be used, for years to come, to roll back federal agencies, and we'll all be better of for it.

And that's why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it.

That’s a BINGO!!!!!

Anyone can just go out in the ocean or lake and take whatever the f they want? Why does that belong to you? If we have no limits on things a few self centered selfish pigs always go out and take everything ruin if for everyone. If you intend to go out and take your living from communal natural resources, how in heck can there not be rules and limits and costs associated with that? I don't get the issue.