Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

This was the best SC decision I have seen in decades.

Agreed. I miss Ohio rivers catching fire and Thalidomide babies. Make America Great!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who’s the fascist, as$h0le? Look in the mirror, read Project 2025, and the orange POS that lies every time he opened his gaping maw.

Better than Biden filling his depends. Look at his face.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

This was the best SC decision I have seen in decades.

Anonymous wrote: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

Anonymous wrote:Who’s the fascist, as$h0le? Look in the mirror, read Project 2025, and the orange POS that lies every time he opened his gaping maw.

Anonymous wrote:This Supreme Court is going to destroy America as we know it. Unless you're a member of the Koch family, have no idea how it helps you. This is how countries die-when people lose faith in the justice system. Let's be honest, we are a declining country unless you are in the donor class.

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.

DP. If you object to the mission of agencies, then the problem isn't the regulations that agencies come up with to enact the laws given them by the legislation, it's the legislators who are writing these laws. You can communicate with legislators or you can vote them out. That is a better solution to your objection than taking the reins from agencies with expertise to courts without expertise.

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

It is honestly outrageous this is even possible.
This is a BEDROCK of federal law and stare decisis X 1000000.

And now JUDGES are going to set policy? Everyone should be outraged by this, across the political spectrum.

"BEDROCK" since 1984?

Somehow the United States of America managed to survive for over 200 years without the Chevron doctrine. I think we'll be ok.

Judges are not going to "set policy." They will simply review whether or not the policy proposed by the Administration is consistent with the law, without special deference to the opinion of the agency. Ruling on whether something is legal is what Courts do.

Chevron was decided because companies were dealing with vague laws across 50 states and needed clarity. Corporations actually asked for Chevron because it would enable better compliance with the law and unleash economic productivity instead of hiring armies of lawyers to deal with conflicting laws and conflicting rulings with judges in different circuits. In short, Chevron is about economic efficiency. Chevron was good because it created some semblance of consistency across the country.

The Supreme Court - by striking down Chevron - just created a massive stimulus program for lawyers. Legal stimmies, if you will.

Again, look at what was going on in Reagan's administration, for example Anne Gorsuch's heading of EPA under Reagan and the extreme deregulation agenda she pursued. It generated a massive backlash and extreme distrust of companies, to the point where big corporations went to Reagan and begged for her to be replaced. Reagan ultimately brought Ruckelshaus, who was EPA's very first Administrator back to set the EPA back on a better regulatory path.

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

It is honestly outrageous this is even possible.
This is a BEDROCK of federal law and stare decisis X 1000000.

And now JUDGES are going to set policy? Everyone should be outraged by this, across the political spectrum.

"BEDROCK" since 1984?

Somehow the United States of America managed to survive for over 200 years without the Chevron doctrine. I think we'll be ok.

Judges are not going to "set policy." They will simply review whether or not the policy proposed by the Administration is consistent with the law, without special deference to the opinion of the agency. Ruling on whether something is legal is what Courts do.

Chevron was decided because companies were dealing with vague laws across 50 states and needed clarity. Corporations actually asked for Chevron because it would enable better compliance with the law and unleash economic productivity instead of hiring armies of lawyers to deal with conflicting laws and conflicting rulings with judges in different circuits. In short, Chevron is about economic efficiency. Chevron was good because it created some semblance of consistency across the country.

The Supreme Court - by striking down Chevron - just created a massive stimulus program for lawyers. Legal stimmies, if you will.