The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#10,276
#10,276
NEO said:
These rulings are 100 percent why I voted for Trump. I give zero chits about his personality. I care that he put multiple conservative justices on who have pulled power back from the government. Chevron ruling today was massive on so many levels.

He gets re-elected and odds are he is replacing 2 maybe three more judges.
Click to expand...
No more Barretts on the court.

To me, it's not so much on what Trump will do as President but it's more important that he UNDO everything Biden put in place by EOs that is doing all the damage to the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, CagleMtnVol, 82_VOL_83 and 3 others
#10,277
#10,277
Balaji
@balajis

CHEVRON DOMINANCE

Technology is about to accelerate.
Because Chevron deference is over.
And regulators can't just make up laws anymore.
So, countless new startups just became feasible.
This is often spoken about in the abstract, so let's do three examples....

THREE EXAMPLES

1) Genomics. Did Congress explicitly give FDA authority to regulate genetic tests in a bill like Kefauver-Harris (1962) or PDUFA (1992)? No, it did not. But in the early 2010s, FDA attacked 23andMe and forced them to take personal genomic tests offline. Implicitly, this was under Chevron.

2) Nuclear power. Did Congress explicitly give EPA and NRC the authority to implement ALARA? No, it did not. But these agencies came up with this "as low as reasonably achievable" standard, forcing nuclear energy to become as expensive as other energy sources by spending all the cost-savings on "safety." Implicitly, this was under Chevron too.

3) Cryptocurrency. You guessed it. Did Congress explicitly give the SEC authority to regulate crypto? No, it did not. Cryptocurrencies didn't exist when the 1933 and 1934 acts were written. However, the SEC says it has regulatory authority over crypto, even when Congress is deliberating on bills to the contrary. Implicitly, that claim of SEC authority too was under Chevron.

In other words: if a regulator can't point to the law that gives them the power, they may not have the power. And you might be able to win in a court of law.

So! For technology, the overruling of Chevron could literally reopen innovation in the physical world. This is on par with the 1991 opening of the Internet to commercial traffic. It deprecates the 20th century regulatory state. All the safety theater and security theater that they optimize for sounding good while actually being bad now has to face judicial scrutiny.


-------------------------------




------------------------------

Vivek Ramaswamy
@VivekGRamaswamy

In Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) , SCOTUS ruled that federal courts *must defer* to an agency’s interpretation of the law as long as the agency jumps through certain procedural hoops. This "Chevron deference" standard even applied to questions about the agencies' own rulemaking capacities.It's a classic case of "Who watches the watchmen?"

That tragic ruling effectively replaced the legislative process laid out in our Constitution with the farcical "notice-and-comment" period which created the myth that the public actually has a say in creating these rules. "The public" (including lobbyists) get a chance to weigh in on a proposed rule, and the agency reserves the right to ignore all the comments. They usually do.Yet these rules carry the force of law.

Look at the ATF's recently overturned pistol brace rule, which turned millions of Americans into felons overnight without their elected representatives ever voting on it. We hear a lot about "threats to democracy." But there is no bigger threat to self-governance in America than the modern administrative state.The 6-justice majority got it right: "agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."Thanks to this ruling, federal courts will have to do their job again by making sure agencies stay within stautory limits.

No more using "ambiguity" as a smokescreen for administrative tyranny.This paves the way to do what we require: SHUT IT DOWN.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, TNVOLNAVY, volinsd and 2 others
#10,280
#10,280
jmacvols1 said:
Balaji
@balajis

CHEVRON DOMINANCE

Technology is about to accelerate.
Because Chevron deference is over.
And regulators can't just make up laws anymore.
So, countless new startups just became feasible.
This is often spoken about in the abstract, so let's do three examples....

THREE EXAMPLES

1) Genomics. Did Congress explicitly give FDA authority to regulate genetic tests in a bill like Kefauver-Harris (1962) or PDUFA (1992)? No, it did not. But in the early 2010s, FDA attacked 23andMe and forced them to take personal genomic tests offline. Implicitly, this was under Chevron.

2) Nuclear power. Did Congress explicitly give EPA and NRC the authority to implement ALARA? No, it did not. But these agencies came up with this "as low as reasonably achievable" standard, forcing nuclear energy to become as expensive as other energy sources by spending all the cost-savings on "safety." Implicitly, this was under Chevron too.

3) Cryptocurrency. You guessed it. Did Congress explicitly give the SEC authority to regulate crypto? No, it did not. Cryptocurrencies didn't exist when the 1933 and 1934 acts were written. However, the SEC says it has regulatory authority over crypto, even when Congress is deliberating on bills to the contrary. Implicitly, that claim of SEC authority too was under Chevron.

In other words: if a regulator can't point to the law that gives them the power, they may not have the power. And you might be able to win in a court of law.

So! For technology, the overruling of Chevron could literally reopen innovation in the physical world. This is on par with the 1991 opening of the Internet to commercial traffic. It deprecates the 20th century regulatory state. All the safety theater and security theater that they optimize for sounding good while actually being bad now has to face judicial scrutiny.


-------------------------------




------------------------------

Vivek Ramaswamy
@VivekGRamaswamy

In Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) , SCOTUS ruled that federal courts *must defer* to an agency’s interpretation of the law as long as the agency jumps through certain procedural hoops. This "Chevron deference" standard even applied to questions about the agencies' own rulemaking capacities.It's a classic case of "Who watches the watchmen?"

That tragic ruling effectively replaced the legislative process laid out in our Constitution with the farcical "notice-and-comment" period which created the myth that the public actually has a say in creating these rules. "The public" (including lobbyists) get a chance to weigh in on a proposed rule, and the agency reserves the right to ignore all the comments. They usually do.Yet these rules carry the force of law.

Look at the ATF's recently overturned pistol brace rule, which turned millions of Americans into felons overnight without their elected representatives ever voting on it. We hear a lot about "threats to democracy." But there is no bigger threat to self-governance in America than the modern administrative state.The 6-justice majority got it right: "agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."Thanks to this ruling, federal courts will have to do their job again by making sure agencies stay within stautory limits.

No more using "ambiguity" as a smokescreen for administrative tyranny.This paves the way to do what we require: SHUT IT DOWN.
Click to expand...

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms
Department of Education
Department of Labor
Internal Revenue Service

1719686734818.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, NorthDallas40, StarRaider and 1 other person
#10,281
#10,281
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, hog88 and ButchPlz
#10,282
#10,282
85SugarVol said:

The Supreme Court vs. the executive branch​


When they write the history books about this era of the Supreme Court, its decimation of presidents' regulatory powers will loom just as large as any other issue.

Loading…

www.axios.com


Every modern president leans heavily on executive actions to advance their agenda, and Democrats in particular use federal agencies for climate, health and tech regulation. Those days are numbered.
Click to expand...


This is correct. The best way for the Dems to orient big picture, long term progress based on science and reason is to get and keep control of the House and Senate. The Court is now the biggest impediment to sound public policy.
 
#10,283
#10,283
lawgator1 said:
This is correct. The best way for the Dems to orient big picture, long term progress based on science and reason is to get and keep control of the House and Senate. The Court is now the biggest impediment to sound public policy.
Click to expand...
Dems haven't been about science or reason since before time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, CagleMtnVol, hog88 and 2 others
#10,285
#10,285
You mean covid science that Faucci admitted was made up distancing and mask..not to mention..pushing the vax on those that didn't need it..that science and reason???? Or the reason of selective and political prosecution?? Or hell how about the logic of straight up lies which your president told on national TV that was debunk hours before the debate...Dems have no right to mention their name and logic, reason and science together ever.
lawgator1 said:
This is correct. The best way for the Dems to orient big picture, long term progress based on science and reason is to get and keep control of the House and Senate. The Court is now the biggest impediment to sound public policy.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol and just bob
#10,288
#10,288
lawgator1 said:
This is correct. The best way for the Dems to orient big picture, long term progress based on science and reason is to get and keep control of the House and Senate. The Court is now the biggest impediment to sound public policy.
Click to expand...
Given recent history, seems more than a bit interesting for you to be cheerleading your team as the standard bearers for science and reason.

And what is the Court doing to serve as an impediment?

The Executive branch must be vested with power from the Legislative branch? Sounds horrible.

How did we ever function as a Republic prior to Chevron?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737, NorthDallas40, hog88 and 1 other person
#10,289
#10,289
lawgator1 said:
This is correct. The best way for the Dems to orient big picture, long term progress based on science and reason is to get and keep control of the House and Senate. The Court is now the biggest impediment to sound public policy.
Click to expand...

You should stick to complaiming about college athletes being allowed to benefit financially off of themselves and their labor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and ButchPlz
#10,296
#10,296
lawgator1 said:
This is correct. The best way for the Dems to orient big picture, long term progress based on science and reason is to get and keep control of the House and Senate. The Court is now the biggest impediment to sound public policy.
Click to expand...
Yeah, nothing like taking private Rights and turning them into public policy.... just remove checks and balances so we can all live in hell.
😂
 
#10,298
#10,298
lawgator1 said:
This is correct. The best way for the Dems to orient big picture, long term progress based on science and reason is to get and keep control of the House and Senate. The Court is now the biggest impediment to sound public policy.
Click to expand...
Translation: much like with Covid, if we control the gubment, we can make up any **** we want and call it science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CobbVol and ButchPlz
#10,300
#10,300
Spike Cohen
@RealSpikeCohen


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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, CagleMtnVol, 85SugarVol and 4 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top