|
Post by Reptile Dysfunction on Jun 29, 2024 9:54:51 GMT -5
corporate America loves it ... poison is profitable and greed is good Your indoctrination is complete. His indoctrination was complete decades ago.
|
|
|
Post by nikonoclast on Jun 29, 2024 10:21:43 GMT -5
Those "unelected bureaucrats" have professional degrees and years of experience.
Do You?
How many federal judges are MD's?
How many are chemists?
How many are electrical engineers?
How many computer scientists and/or mathematicians?
This is a huge giveaway to corporate motherfuckers who will be free to pollute and poison us.
( As well as steal hand over fist, corrupt the stock market, and commit bribery. )
They will forum-shop, like that Bible-thumping anti-abortion, one judge district, asshole in Texas.
Were you aware that "Justice 33" grew up the dutiful daughter of an oil industry attorney?
( His specialty was finding crackpot/corrupt pseudo scientists to oppose climate change. )
Her appointment to the Supremes came from the number 33 ranked Law School.
She was carefully groomed for the role ... straight to the appeals court, with Zero experience.
Cute, Catholic, ... and approved by the Federalist Society.
Your grandchildren will breathe poison, and drink Cancer.
|
|
|
Post by gandy on Jun 29, 2024 10:38:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mapper on Jun 29, 2024 10:56:17 GMT -5
Nikon, A few questions, This is following Cargill vs garland This example below is about pistol braces. But shows that chevron is flawed. I read the proposed atf rule, read the worksheet and guidance for classification, Then read the comments as part of the rule making process under the Administrative procedures act.
Chevron is and has since inception been at adversarial odds with the APA and while Chevron has not been used in a decade, it was time to stop it. The ruling clearly states this.
When the final rule was published it was NOTHING like the proposed rule, the worksheet classification and guidance examples relating to it had been removed in their entirety. What replaced it was something that only the agency could determine was non compliant. It was now a choice of either destroy the item which was an accessory not a firearm, or take a picture of it submit to atf with your name and address and let them make the determination if you were in compliance or not, or do the same and have it put on the nfa tax stamp process. Now how does this rule which is murky and ambitious, and clearly defies the administrative procedures act, get a pass under chevron just because the agency who wrote it, and enforces it (non legislative branch) are supposed experts in the field, AND remember that the ATF reviewed it and issued a letter a DECADE before saying it was not a NFA item? Now their letters and determinations are non binding and can and have changed multiple times over various lengths of times. Or are you saying, it is fine to give up the rule of law (APA), as far as HOW agency rulemaking is required, by rule making which has the effect of law? Just because the experts at the agency say so? that is Chevron Deference when rules are ambiguous. Seems like a violation of constutional powers to me executive branch making rules that have effect of law. And yes, I had the same problems when someone with a "R" behind their name does it. (Vanderstock case)
Then there was the EPA case in Virginia that got overturned These were all coming from executive agency rule making process..
I read the ruling on the case relating to the Loperbright and herring fishing and having to pay the govt $710/day for observers, have you? Link is below.
Or were your opinions based on 3rd party talking points..
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on Jun 29, 2024 11:26:25 GMT -5
Everyday unconstitutional laws get written. The dupes say well challenge it in court, which is very expensive. Sooooo courts keep abusing power. This is a huge win for America, but it's sad that it took this long
While Cavanaugh was being argued about I told the chatroom that Chevron was getting over turned. It was his destiny. Gorsuch even went against his own mother (EPA hack) to do what was right. Agenda and big government justices voted against it as expected
|
|
|
Post by mapper on Jun 29, 2024 11:33:05 GMT -5
Executive agencies knowingly writing ambiguous rules which have effect of law, harming someone, then making them spend $$$$$$$ and time to get the rule invalidated seems like a punitive process.
Good decision, long overdue.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 29, 2024 11:39:52 GMT -5
Executive agencies knowingly writing ambiguous rules which have effect of law, harming someone, then making them spend $$$$$$$ and time to get the rule invalidated seems like a punitive process. Good decision, long overdue. The agencies can still write those laws and make someone spend $$$$ and time to get the court to invalidate them. This does not stop that. All this does is give the judge more power to decide if that was congress' intent when passing the law rather than rely on the agency's interpretation. You still got to file the lawsuit and go to court and spend the big money to fight the rule you disagree with. This ruling will likely increase the number the lawsuits filed and make lawyers a lot of money.
|
|
|
Post by mapper on Jun 29, 2024 12:05:28 GMT -5
Yes, I'm aware, BUT hopefully it will curtail agencies from deliberately making ambiguous rules as we have seen in the recent past. If the affected party whose rights were harmed gets legal costs that would be better. Then publication of how much taxpayers funds were used in the over reach of power. Both in prosecution and defense of the rules.
This isn't a donkey vs elephant thing, it is a equal application of justice thing.
Currently alot these cases have Merrick Garlands fingerprints on them.
You know the guy who got passed over as a nomination to the SCOTUS.
|
|
|
Post by nikonoclast on Jun 29, 2024 13:25:58 GMT -5
Nikon, A few questions, This is following Cargill vs garland This example below is about pistol braces. But shows that chevron is flawed.
I'll stop right there. ( Will get around to reading the "brace" later and respond accordingly ) Who ever claimed that "Chevron" was without flaw? Is the definition limited by stretches of the imagination? ( We've heard some absurd hypotheticals from this Court recently. ) "Chevron" might have had flaws as written, or applied, but it worked and worked well. The same goes for "Roe vs. Wade". Flawed, but necessary, it worked, and in most cases, it worked well.
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on Jun 29, 2024 13:43:50 GMT -5
Nikon, A few questions, This is following Cargill vs garland This example below is about pistol braces. But shows that chevron is flawed.
I'll stop right there. ( Will get around to reading the "brace" later and respond accordingly ) Who ever claimed that "Chevron" was without flaw? Is the definition limited by stretches of the imagination? ( We've heard some absurd hypotheticals from this Court recently. ) "Chevron" might have had flaws as written, or applied, but it worked and worked well. The same goes for "Roe vs. Wade". Flawed, but necessary, it worked, and in most cases, it worked well. How can you accept that something worked well when it was 100% unconstitutional? I can't even see how you can marginalize that
|
|
|
Post by mapper on Jun 29, 2024 14:08:35 GMT -5
Nikon, Read the decision that I linked in loperbright and you will see how and why chevron was flawed, and was at odds with the APA. It really Didn't work Well after APA.
Lower bright, Cargill, vanderstock, frame and reciever rule, epa rules, there may have been others but I'm not aware. Education and title 9, energy, epa, etc.. but I think last time chevron was used at least in the Supreme was 2015 or 2016..Obama era..you know "Fundamental Transformation"
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Jun 29, 2024 15:45:58 GMT -5
Those "unelected bureaucrats" have professional degrees and years of experience. Do You? How many federal judges are MD's? How many are chemists? How many are electrical engineers? How many computer scientists and/or mathematicians? This is a huge giveaway to corporate motherfuckers who will be free to pollute and poison us. ( As well as steal hand over fist, corrupt the stock market, and commit bribery. ) They will forum-shop, like that Bible-thumping anti-abortion, one judge district, asshole in Texas. Were you aware that "Justice 33" grew up the dutiful daughter of an oil industry attorney? ( His specialty was finding crackpot/corrupt pseudo scientists to oppose climate change. ) Her appointment to the Supremes came from the number 33 ranked Law School. She was carefully groomed for the role ... straight to the appeals court, with Zero experience. Cute, Catholic, ... and approved by the Federalist Society. Your grandchildren will breathe poison, and drink Cancer. Who cares? It's not their job to rule over us. It is in their best interest to enlarge government and create more reasons for their existence.
|
|
|
Post by nikonoclast on Jun 29, 2024 20:23:03 GMT -5
"Chevron" might have had flaws as written, or applied, but it worked and worked well. The same goes for "Roe vs. Wade". Flawed, but necessary, it worked, and in most cases, it worked well. How can you accept that something worked well when it was 100% unconstitutional? I can't even see how you can marginalize that How could something that was "100% unconstitutional" have been considered settled law for so long? Who are you parroting with that absurd claim? ( if not, in what state did you pass the bar? ) How many times was Chevron questioned without any significant change? The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court has been packed with corporate tools. They won't stop until every vestige of the New Deal is gone.
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Jun 29, 2024 20:44:34 GMT -5
The new deal was a complete corruption of the constitution....good riddance to anything created by FDR.
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on Jun 29, 2024 22:49:09 GMT -5
Thank god for the TVA
|
|