SCOTUS: Chevron Doctrine: Corporations vs America

[searcher]

I too would be very interested in knowing some of what you think is outdated in it?

Never said it was outdated. What I said was that some of the supremes are interpreting it like we're in the 1800's. We're not, it's 2024. Some don't even give two shits what the constitution says. They are removing protections we've had for years based on what their "gift givers" tell them to do.

The Federalist Society controls the federal judiciary, so why can’t they stop whining?

All they do is win, win, win, no matter what. So why are America’s most powerful lawyers so unhappy?

www.vox.com

 

[searcher]

Please point out some things in the constitution that you think are outdated.

So are there any examples or is it just rhetoric? Lets discuss

Answered above but a prime example is Roe. That was around for about 50 years. Trump said he would appoint judges to get rid of it. After lying to congress about their stance on Roe so they would be appointed to the court they got rid of it.

They are being rewarded to get rid of certain protections we've had for years. Not a good thing.

In your post you mentioned welfare. Not going to jump on a soap box here but in America the biggest welfare recipients are big businesses.

Biggest corporate subsidies of the last 20 years

Stacker has scoured policy research center Good Jobs First in order to create this list of the biggest corporate subsidies of the last 20 years. The deals are ranked in ascending order of monetary worth and cover a range of industries.

stacker.com

Congress and the supremes are bought and paid for.

 

[Joe King]

Never said it was outdated

You didn"t use the exact word "outdated", but how does the following post of yours nor mean the same thing?

It has to be looked at in today's world - not when it was written. Our world today is far different than the world of those who wrote the Constitution.

That certainly implies that you think it is outdated.

If it's not suited for our World todat, how does that not mean that you think it is outdated?

You aren't being very clear.

What I said was that some of the supremes are interpreting it like we're in the 1800's.

That also strongly implies that you think it is outdated.

Some don't even give two shits what the constitution says.

Says the guy who himself, doesn't want to go by what it says.

They are removing protections we've had for years based on what their "gift givers" tell them to do.

Again, if you are going to make such allegations, please show some evidence that the SC issued rulings based on something other than the Constitution.

I see no evidence of it.

It's as though you are complaining that someone gave them gifts in order for them to do their job properly.

Answered above but a prime example is Roe. That was around for about 50 years.

What Clause in the Constitution supports that and recognizes one's Right to kill an unborn child?

I don't see anything in the Constitution that would cover that issue. Except the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Are you referring to those?

Congress and the supremes are bought and paid for.

What about the Senate? What about the potus? The current potus is certainly bought and paid gor.

They sold the "Biden Brand" for years to our adversaries. Biden's collected million$ selling Joe.
....but you don't seem to care about that.

 

[searcher]

They sold the "Biden Brand" for years to our adversaries. Biden's collected million$ selling Joe.
....but you don't seem to care about that.

Joe doesn't go around talking like a psycho. He doesn't go around saying he wants to be a dictator and have his political rivals arrested. Trump does. I like Joe........he's a gentleman.

As for the rest:

I don't like the recent decisions from the supreme court. They're not good decisions for peeps. Maybe for religious fanatics, king worshipers and other ilk. They need to do right by the majority.

Two issues are qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture that need to be done away with. Where are they on them?

We'll find out tomorrow just how far down the rat hole they've fallen when they issue their decision on Trump's immunity claim.

They need to do things that I believe are right. What more can I say???????

________________________________________--

Now for some important stuff.

Kamala and AOC aren't your cup-o-tea.

How about a young Nancy Pelosi? A young RBG? Maybe a young Michele Obama?

 

[Joe King]

Joe doesn't go around talking like a psycho

The real psychos usually don't.

To be honest, he talks more like an Alzheimer's patient.

He doesn't go around saying he wants to be a dictator and have his political rivals arrested.

That's what your guy Joe actually did.

He dictated on mandates and all things covid, and has been working to charge convict and imprison his opponent.

Trump might say stuff, but he hasn't acted on it in the way you describe,.

Trump does. I like Joe........he's a gentleman.

Then you like a an actual dictator. Joe caused people to lose their jobs.

I don't like the recent decisions from the supreme court.

That's ok. You are allowed to not like them.

They're not good decisions for peeps. Maybe for religious fanatics, king worshipers and other ilk. They need to do right by the majority.

But they are good decisions for freedom loving people. Less gov means for freedom.

Are you against freedom?

We'll find out tomorrow just how far down the rat hole they've fallen

Amazing that you call following the Constitution, a rat hole.

They need to do things that I believe are right. What more can I say???????

You clearly like the modern progressive interpretation of the Constitution that allows the gov to make weed illegal.

 

[searcher]

 

[Casey Jones]

P-Doe Joe a gentlemen?

Care to ask Ashley about that?

Or about all the other preteen girls, scared to death on camera, when that strange man, smelling like a loaded diaper, started sniffing their hair?

 

[Cigarlover]

Answered above but a prime example is Roe. That was around for about 50 years. Trump said he would appoint judges to get rid of it. After lying to congress about their stance on Roe so they would be appointed to the court they got rid of it.

They are being rewarded to get rid of certain protections we've had for years. Not a good thing.

In your post you mentioned welfare. Not going to jump on a soap box here but in America the biggest welfare recipients are big businesses.

Biggest corporate subsidies of the last 20 years

Stacker has scoured policy research center Good Jobs First in order to create this list of the biggest corporate subsidies of the last 20 years. The deals are ranked in ascending order of monetary worth and cover a range of industries.

stacker.com

Congress and the supremes are bought and paid for.

Yes Roe VRS Wade being overturned is a shocker to many to be honest but it's the right decision. It was turned back to being a state issue where it rightfully belongs. As a state issue you now have 3 choices.
1) petition your state reps to make a law favorable to your position whether for or against it.
2) petition your federal reps to amend the constitution to add abortion as a basic right. If 2/3rds of the states vote to amend the constitution then it becomes a federal issue.
3) move to a state with more favorable laws.

A major problem in this country is getting progressives appointed to change the laws from the bench instead of actually doing things correctly and ratifying an amendment. The constitution is pretty much a perfect document and even has provisions for making changes as the times change is in reality it can never be outdated as some like to say.

 

[searcher]

Yes Roe VRS Wade being overturned is a shocker to many to be honest but it's the right decision. It was turned back to being a state issue where it rightfully belongs. As a state issue you now have 3 choices.
1) petition your state reps to make a law favorable to your position whether for or against it.
2) petition your federal reps to amend the constitution to add abortion as a basic right. If 2/3rds of the states vote to amend the constitution then it becomes a federal issue.
3) move to a state with more favorable laws.

A major problem in this country is getting progressives appointed to change the laws from the bench instead of actually doing things correctly and ratifying an amendment. The constitution is pretty much a perfect document and even has provisions for making changes as the times change is in reality it can never be outdated as some like to say.

Gave you a thank you because that was an honest answer.

Problem is some states want to do away with abortions all together with no consideration for rape or the woman's health.

Why they want to do that boggles my mind.

Had the supremes left roe the way it was this would not have happened. I don't know if it's a case of them being religious fanatics who simply believe that "if it happens it's God's will" or if they didn't consider all the possible consequences of their decision. No matter, it was a bad decision in my opinion.

Sometimes the best move is no move. Let sleeping dogs lie so-to-speak.

 

[Cigarlover]

Gave you a thank you because that was an honest answer.

Problem is some states want to do away with abortions all together with no consideration for rape or the woman's health.

Why they want to do that boggles my mind.

Had the supremes left roe the way it was this would not have happened. I don't know if it's a case of them being religious fanatics who simply believe that "if it happens it's God's will" or if they didn't consider all the possible consequences of their decision. No matter, it was a bad decision in my opinion.

Sometimes the best move is no move. Let sleeping dogs lie so-to-speak.

A healthy discussion of the topics is always more productive than trashing the other side.

Problem is some states want to do away with abortions all together with no consideration for rape or the woman's health.

And I agree with you here. Those should actually be considerations in the law and this is where petitioning your state reps comes into play. Put the pressure on them to make the changes. If you get nowhere then yes, sadly it may be time to move if your concerned about being raped and needing an abortion or if you have a history of tough pregnancies that may require termination or if something is going wrong with your pregnancy. I get it and would also be very concerned about those issues.

Sometimes the best move is no move. Let sleeping dogs lie so-to-speak.

This I do not agree with. The best move is to always follow the constitution. That being said I realize that there are times when I would agree with this statement. One of those times would have been when the Supreme Court took up the issue of Roe Vrs wade in the beginning. Like 1971 or so IIRC. Whatever the date, if they had just left things alone then it would have always remained a states issue and there would have never been the angst over changing this decision in the 1st place.

 

[Joe King]

A major problem in this country is getting progressives appointed to change the laws from the bench instead of actually doing things correctly and ratifying an amendment.

That's because the leftists know they do not have the support to make changes the proper way. They have to force their way on everyone else.

Gave you a thank you because that was an honest answer.

Mine have all been honest answers too.

Problem is some states want to do away with abortions all together with no consideration for rape or the woman's health.

Why they want to do that boggles my mind.

That's up to those States, as to how they want to do it.
....and it's still a human life we're talking about.

Had the supremes left roe the way it was this would not have happened. I don't know if it's a case of them being religious fanatics who simply believe that "if it happens it's God's will" or if they didn't consider all the possible consequences of their decision. No matter, it was a bad decision in my opinion.

Why can't it be simply that they applied the Constitution?

Sometimes the best move is no move. Let sleeping dogs lie so-to-speak.

Not if it lets unConstitutional stuff remain legal.

One of those times would have been when the Supreme Court took up the issue of Roe Vrs wade in the beginning. Like 1971 or so IIRC.

That was the leftists imposing their progressiveness on all of us.

 

[Goldhedge]

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


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.

 

[Joe King]

The Chevron Deference also allowed congress to become lazy by intentionally enacting laws that are vague.

 

[Casey Jones]

The Chevron Deference also allowed congress to become lazy by intentionally enacting laws that are vague.

They were lazy, always. The Chevron Doctrine indulged them.

This is the nature of a late-stage republic. Who goes into CONgress now? Party climbers. What happens when they get there? The insiders take the n00bs aside - and tell them how it is. Those who don't like it, get kicked out of their Parties and become non-aligned one-termers, with YUUGE PACs gunning for them.

It's not unlike the Roman Senate as Rome morphed from a republic to a dictatorship. The Senate became a place for political insiders to party while on government largesse. What they said or wanted, didn't matter. Caesar's will, mattered.

 

[Goldhedge]

 

[Joe King]

^^^ typical democrat scum.

 

[searcher]

US law firms smell opportunity as Supreme Court guts agency powers​

July 3 (Reuters) - Law firms are capitalizing on client uncertainty sparked by a flurry of new U.S. Supreme Court rulings that favored opponents of federal agency powers, even as lawyers themselves differ on the decisions' immediate and long-term effects.

Within hours of the decisions, major U.S. law firms began sending out client-focused emails and webinar invitations to discuss the cases and showcase their expertise, a marketing strategy that often follows major legal developments.

Law firms known for challenging federal regulations stand to be particularly busy, but lawyers said it will take time for the new landscape to take shape.

In the space of three days, the high court clamped down on agencies' use of their own internal judges, overturned the 1984 precedent known as "Chevron deference" that required judges to defer to agency interpretations of laws deemed ambiguous, and revived a regulatory challenge over statute of limitations that could open a window to more lawsuits over old regulations.

More:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-law-firms-smell-opportunity-supreme-court-guts-agency-powers-2024-07-03/

 

[searcher]

A bit more than the Chevron case here.

Straight Down the Middle -- Breaking Down the Chevron and January 6 Cases -- Ep. 6​

Jul 3, 2024

In this Supreme Court round-up episode, I cover Chevron, the Idaho abortion case, and the January 6 Fischer case. Bonus: stay to the end for a snapshot summary of the Court's presidential immunity holding.


34:03

 

[Joe King]

Thing is, had the Agencies not exceeded their authority by pushing an agenda, this case would have never went to court in the first place. It's only because they went too far with it, and got pushback.

 

[Joe King]

Their greed for power did 'em in.

 

[Goldhedge]

When they turned puddles on a ranch into wetlands they really went too far...

 

[Joe King]

When they turned puddles on a ranch into wetlands they really went too far...

Among other stupid BS they did.

 

[Goldhedge]

This

 

[searcher]

Meditations on Independence

The Founding Fathers established responsible government: elected leadership that must regularly stand accountable for its actions and their effects. Their Revolution explicitly repudiated the idea of lawmaking and enforcement by far-away elites...

goldseek.com

 

[Joe King]

^^^ from your article:

"Chevron replaced “government by the people” with that priesthood of experts, those who must simply be trusted to be benevolent, all-knowing, and true."

Reads to me like we've been living in 2112


Those telling us how terrible the recent SC ruling is, clearly seem to truly believe the following:

"They are increasingly clear that "Our Democracy" means a priesthood of experts, shielded from accountability or responsibility, making decisions "for the good of the people" without their involvement or consent."

You can't possibly see it that way, AND be a good American who believes in the nations Founding principles. It's impossible, as the two are at odds with each other.


Goes on to say:

We need EPA, FTC, FDA, and all the other alphabet agencies.

Perhaps, but they should be limited to merely enforcing the actual laws that congress enacted and do so in real courts. Not the pretend courts that merely enforce the will of the agency upon defendants.



So @searcher , have you come around to see the truth? Do you agree with the article you've posted?

Edited to add: wrote the above as I was reading it. Only thing I really disagree with is this:

"You can still have administrative law judges (ALJs) but they are subject to appeal."

F' that. Just have them do it in regular Article 3 courts. No need for agencies to have their own judges.

 

[searcher]

So @searcher , have you come around to see the truth? Do you agree with the article you've posted?

Some of it I agree with some I don't. The same goes for some of the news, opinion pieces and talking point articles I post. Think "food for thought."

 

[Joe King]

Some of it I agree with some I don't. The same goes for some of the news, opinion pieces and talking point articles I post. Think "food for thought."

What parts of it do you agree with?

 

[Joe King]

What parts of it do you agree with?

I guess we'll never know.



Here is a good breakdown of the Chevron Ruling.

Had the agencies not overstepped their bounds, this Ruling woulda never happened.

 

[searcher]

A Supreme Court Justice Warned That a Ruling Would Cause “Large-Scale Disruption.” The Effects Are Already Being Felt.

One recent Supreme Court decision is already rippling through dozens of key lower court cases involving everything from airline fees to gun sales to abortion access, affecting people’s lives in important — and sometimes contradictory — ways.

www.propublica.org