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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Why? Government makes things worse at every opportunity. Your dishwasher takes forever and does a worse job than it did 20 years ago due to dumb regulations. Same for your washing machine. CAFE standards are wasteful, among many other regulations that dramatically increase the costs of cars? No one wants a start-stop feature. Wonder how much those costs?

Dems look at the good regulations from a bygone era (e.g., catalytic converters) and think every future regulation must be similarly good. The truth is we captured most of the low-hanging fruit generations ago and can stop making things more costly in the name of "doing something."

50 years ago we went to the moon. Today, the government subcontracts with a company that can't even return a vehicle from space. It's pathetic. Who would trust the same government to regulate something as complex as the economy?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Why? Government makes things worse at every opportunity. Your dishwasher takes forever and does a worse job than it did 20 years ago due to dumb regulations. Same for your washing machine. CAFE standards are wasteful, among many other regulations that dramatically increase the costs of cars? No one wants a start-stop feature. Wonder how much those costs?

Dems look at the good regulations from a bygone era (e.g., catalytic converters) and think every future regulation must be similarly good. The truth is we captured most of the low-hanging fruit generations ago and can stop making things more costly in the name of "doing something."

50 years ago we went to the moon. Today, the government subcontracts with a company that can't even return a vehicle from space. It's pathetic. Who would trust the same government to regulate something as complex as the economy?

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?

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

Anonymous wrote:Excellent decision.

Enough with governing by fiat.

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.

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:This will be good if Trump is elected again by preventing him from doing crazy stuff via EO.

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.