Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think he’s Bidening the truth here. What kid wants to grow up to be a bureaucrat at a worthless government agency.

If there’s any truth to this, hopefully he aims higher in life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Hasn’t the Biden administration been quite successful in getting lots of federal judges confirmed?

Presidebt Obama did this as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how will Trump impose all of these protectionist tarriffs and duties? Department of Commerce can't do it and I doubt Congress can get their act together (assuming a R House and S).

What about EOs that Presidents have used to circumvent the regulatory process? Will those be invalid as well as Executive encroachment on the legislative branch?

No. King Trump will be permitted to do as he pleases. Immunity, unitary executive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how will Trump impose all of these protectionist tarriffs and duties? Department of Commerce can't do it and I doubt Congress can get their act together (assuming a R House and S).

What about EOs that Presidents have used to circumvent the regulatory process? Will those be invalid as well as Executive encroachment on the legislative branch?

No. King Trump will be permitted to do as he pleases. Immunity, unitary executive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how will Trump impose all of these protectionist tarriffs and duties? Department of Commerce can't do it and I doubt Congress can get their act together (assuming a R House and S).

What about EOs that Presidents have used to circumvent the regulatory process? Will those be invalid as well as Executive encroachment on the legislative branch?

No. King Trump will be permitted to do as he pleases. Immunity, unitary executive.

Anonymous wrote:So how will Trump impose all of these protectionist tarriffs and duties? Department of Commerce can't do it and I doubt Congress can get their act together (assuming a R House and S).

What about EOs that Presidents have used to circumvent the regulatory process? Will those be invalid as well as Executive encroachment on the legislative branch?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Hasn’t the Biden administration been quite successful in getting lots of federal judges confirmed?

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.

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