Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it real now ?

Trump was the ONLY candidate to advocate for less immigration.   Hillary wanted to expand legal immigration

Both parties push for more immigration to replace US workers.  But Democrats used to be the party of labor.

3 Supreme Court picks lost because Hillary lost to an idiot like Trump - “urban, coastal, arrogant party.”

While sitting on a park bench in Lincoln, Mass., I recently watched a roofer fall two stories after the scaffolding under him gave way. He appeared to be an immigrant. And if he was here illegally, as about 15 percent of all construction industry workers are, he probably lacked worker's comp and health insurance.

That's precisely why many employers—in the construction industry and other sectors—hire immigrants. They don't demand decent wages or working conditions. When they get hurt, they can be shunted aside. Some firms have even turned injured workers over to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency for deportation.

This should outrage my fellow Democrats. But at least for the elected officials in my party, it often doesn't. The party's tolerance for illegal immigration violates nearly every other core value we hold dear—from workers' rights to affordable housing. It's also a political albatross that threatens the party's chances in the upcoming election.

Polling shows that swing voters care enormously about immigration. When Democrats ignore illegal migration—or implement border policies that exacerbate it—Republicans win elections. And when Republicans win elections, they move the country in the wrong direction on income equality, education, affordable housing, women's rights, and virtually every other major issue.

https://www.newsweek.com/my-democratic-party-wrong-immigration-opinion-1917957

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it real now ?

Trump was the ONLY candidate to advocate for less immigration.   Hillary wanted to expand legal immigration

Both parties push for more immigration to replace US workers.  But Democrats used to be the party of labor.

3 Supreme Court picks lost because Hillary lost to an idiot like Trump - “urban, coastal, arrogant party.”

While sitting on a park bench in Lincoln, Mass., I recently watched a roofer fall two stories after the scaffolding under him gave way. He appeared to be an immigrant. And if he was here illegally, as about 15 percent of all construction industry workers are, he probably lacked worker's comp and health insurance.

That's precisely why many employers—in the construction industry and other sectors—hire immigrants. They don't demand decent wages or working conditions. When they get hurt, they can be shunted aside. Some firms have even turned injured workers over to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency for deportation.

This should outrage my fellow Democrats. But at least for the elected officials in my party, it often doesn't. The party's tolerance for illegal immigration violates nearly every other core value we hold dear—from workers' rights to affordable housing. It's also a political albatross that threatens the party's chances in the upcoming election.

Polling shows that swing voters care enormously about immigration. When Democrats ignore illegal migration—or implement border policies that exacerbate it—Republicans win elections. And when Republicans win elections, they move the country in the wrong direction on income equality, education, affordable housing, women's rights, and virtually every other major issue.

https://www.newsweek.com/my-democratic-party-wrong-immigration-opinion-1917957

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait until you have to explain to a judge with zero STEM background what a p-value is, or what Bayesian statics are used for. Imagine a judge with zero medical or scientific background trying to make a decision on a drug that will cost the country $100B and them trying to understand the nuances of the statistics for a double blinded, placebo controlled trial with appropriate power of analysis, design to reduce type 1 or 2 errors, and being able to evaluate whether or not a company is trying to p hack their way to an approval.


Lawyers have insane amounts of hubris. They need to realize they don’t know everything.

I'm astonished at the shortsightedness of the business community on this. Obviously this is going to make it easier to go after environmental and safety regulations they don't like. But it's also going to create massive instability on loads of other issues, like patents, drug approvals, issuance of securities, Medicare reimbursement rates, auto standards, etc. What's Merck going to think when some district judge in WDTex decides that the FDA approval on their new blockbuster drug was unlawful? We already saw a preview of this with the abortion pill, but if they don't realize this is going to open up the floodgates, then they are very very naive.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Is it real now ?

Trump was the ONLY candidate to advocate for less immigration.   Hillary wanted to expand legal immigration

Both parties push for more immigration to replace US workers.  But Democrats used to be the party of labor.

3 Supreme Court picks lost because Hillary lost to an idiot like Trump - “urban, coastal, arrogant party.”

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

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

If your “bedrock” is built out of wet sand, don’t be shocked when it gets kicked over.

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

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait until you have to explain to a judge with zero STEM background what a p-value is, or what Bayesian statics are used for. Imagine a judge with zero medical or scientific background trying to make a decision on a drug that will cost the country $100B and them trying to understand the nuances of the statistics for a double blinded, placebo controlled trial with appropriate power of analysis, design to reduce type 1 or 2 errors, and being able to evaluate whether or not a company is trying to p hack their way to an approval.


Lawyers have insane amounts of hubris. They need to realize they don’t know everything.

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry. As soon as there is a republican in the WH and his administration's deregulatory measures keep getting blocked by federal judges because they don't comply with their interpretation of the statute, the republicans on the Supreme Court will re-discover their love of deference to agency interpretations.