Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (1 Viewer)

[MT15]

With the increased scrutiny due to recent revelations in the press I thought maybe we can use a SCOTUS thread. We can discuss the impending Senate investigation and the legislation proposed today by Murkowski and King in the Senate that will formalize ethical guidelines.

We can also use this thread to highlight cases that possibly don’t deserve their own thread, like the following.

I saw this case today, and I cannot believe the US Government is allowed to do this. Unreasonable search and seizure? The examples he gives in the rest of the thread are just sickening:

 

[SaintForLife]

More on Chevron:




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.

 

[SaintForLife]

What do you know. The DOJ was overcharging January 6th defendants.

 

[SaintForLife]

Yesterday DOJ put out a "Fact Sheet" to the press calling attention to the fact that the Fischer decision really has only a limited impact on all the J6 cases taken as a whole, attempting to minimize the fallout over the implications of the Court's decision on how DOJ has pursued these cases.

Referred the number as only "2%" of J6 cases.

But they filed the following in a pending case -- just sent to me.

"Scores of cases" in District Court and "Multiple cases" on appeal.

When they are fighting public opinion, Fischer is not significant.

When they want more time to figure out their response, the impact is enormous.

Well -- which is it????
What a bunch of @ ssholes.

 

[Sendai]

Chevron.

Agency deems there is a need.

Agency conveys the need to Congress.

Congress evaluates. Creates legislation if Congress agrees with the agency.

Not terribly difficult. Eliminates ambiguity.

 

[MT15]

I will give SFL a concrete example of why overturning Chevron is a bad idea:

 

[Optimus Prime]

‘Terrifying and dystopian’: the dark realities of the supreme court’s homelessness decision

Sara Rankin, a law professor cited in Sotomayor’s dissent in the Oregon case, warns more cities will seek to banish the unhoused

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Presidential immunity decision due tomorrow

 

[LA - L.A.]

Presidential immunity decision due tomorrow

I've got a bad feeling they're going to come up with a slime ball ruling that allows only Trump to be immune for his crimes.

IF the eff around by giving blanket immunity to all presidents, I hope that Biden invokes the Patriot act and disappears Trump and his entire family, and then any media personality that says squat about it. I'm mostly joking, but only mostly.

The domestic and foreign bad guys are going all in on November. I'm a hundred percent serious about that.

 

[DaveXA]

I've got a bad feeling they're going to come up with a slime ball ruling that allows only Trump to be immune for his crimes.

IF the eff around by giving blanket immunity to all presidents, I hope that Biden invokes the Patriot act and disappears Trump and his entire family, and then any media personality that says squat about it. I'm mostly joking, but only mostly.

The domestic and foreign bad guys are going all in on November. I'm a hundred percent serious about that.

Tell you what, if SCOTUS gives blanket immunity, then Biden should take full advantage of it, like immediately, and I'm completely serious. What's good for the goose and all that.

 

[bird]

I didn't say anything about that.

I didn't say the agency creates the law. I said Congress purposely passes vague laws and let's the agencies interpret that law as they see fit because Congress doesn't want to do the work to write specific laws.

Those agencies definitely interpret the law. Let's look at the case from SCOTUS.

a family fishing business sued because they were paying $700 a day to have federal regulators oversee their business. The statute governing the National Marine Fisheries Service says nothing about making their business pay for the cost of their own regulation, and it was just decided along the way that businesses would have to foot the bill for the NMFS' own enforcement.

They interpreted the law and decided they could charge that business to have federal regulators oversee their business.

Oh really? Are you saying nobody in the judicial system has expertise in interpreting law and they shouldn't apply the constitution? That's an odd take.


Congress can pass the laws and those agencies can enforce them. Those agencies aren't supposed to interpret those laws as they see fit.

So we should just let agencies decide what they want to do despite the specific law not giving them that specific power to do so?

It doesn't matter if it takes a long time to get a law written and passed. It's set up that way purposely.

I am saying that unless a law is a bill of attainder, ex post facto or a religious test the SCOTUS decisions are the PERSONAL opinions as to whether or not they like a particular law. Furthermore as noted in the Dobbs decision when Alito said that the constitution makes no reference to abortion. This incredibly juvenile and simplistic statement is only worthy of disdain and contempt. The constitution references virtually no human activity.

So, as to the current SCOTUS and their idiotic ruling on regulatory agencies your ignorance is quite simply incomprehensible. Under you and their so-called reasoning EVERY action by a corporation and or industry requires an act of congress to regulate it. So, a corporation dumping a particular pollutant into ground water and poisoning hundreds needs a law while that same corporation could then dump yet another chemical poisoning hundreds and would require another law by congress.

Your thought process is not simply unrealistic it is dangerous.

Do the country and planet a favor and don’t vote anymore.

 

[bird]

More on Chevron:




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.

If a business cannot afford it then too damn bad. A business is not entitled to make any profit let alone exist.

When your water is poisoned, your child is choking with asthma, your mother or father are neglected in a nursing home then don’t go crying to anyone. You will have deserved what happened to you because you favor profit over anything and everything else including you and your family’s well-being.

 

[bird]

Chevron.

Agency deems there is a need.

Agency conveys the need to Congress.

Congress evaluates. Creates legislation if Congress agrees with the agency.

Not terribly difficult. Eliminates ambiguity.

Terribly slow. Will you pay for the damages due to slow-walked legislation?

Didn’t think so.

 

[LA - L.A.]

If a business cannot afford it then too damn bad. A business is not entitled to make any profit let alone exist.

When your water is poisoned, your child is choking with asthma, your mother or father are neglected in a nursing home then don’t go crying to anyone. You will have deserved what happened to you because you favor profit over anything and everything else including you and your family’s well-being.

I know some may see what you're saying as overly harsh, but this is not a drill and it's rubber meet the road time. I don't like to use cliches, but over the past few years it seems cliches are the only things that resonate with a large portion of the population and I want what I say to resonate with as large a portion of society as possible.

 

[Dragon]

Chevron doctrine goes down because of the arrogance

We’re going to put an inspector on your boat and you have to pay the inspector.

A bridge too far.

Congress will actually have to learn to write proper legislation.

Chevron or another company who polutes our water and air donates massively to the speakers re-election fund and he refuses to put the legislation to a vote while people are dying for years

 

[B4YOU]

Chevron.

Agency deems there is a need.

Agency conveys the need to Congress.

Congress evaluates. Creates legislation if Congress agrees with the agency.

Not terribly difficult. Eliminates ambiguity.

You have no idea how hard it is to get legislation or regulations approved.

I'll take expert regulators over bribed politicians any day.

 

[superchuck500]

Chevron.

Agency deems there is a need.

Agency conveys the need to Congress.

Congress evaluates. Creates legislation if Congress agrees with the agency.

Not terribly difficult. Eliminates ambiguity.

Except that is entirely contrary to why we have the executive/regulatory system in the first place. The legislative process is very slow and when it is highly partisan, like it has been recently, it is generally snarled into basic ineffectiveness.

The current Congress has passed 65 bills since January 3, 2023. The average number in a two year term is about 350 to 400. This Congress and any in a similar environment will not "create legislation if Congress agrees with the agency." It's beyond silly to even say that's a reasonable concept.

Completely difficult and a recipe for gumming up the federal government - which was entirely the purpose, let's be clear about that.

 

[DaveXA]

Except that is entirely contrary to why we have the executive/regulatory system in the first place. The legislative process is very slow and when it is highly partisan, like it has been recently, it is generally snarled into basic ineffectiveness.

The current Congress has passed 65 bills since January 3, 2023. The average number in a two year term is about 350 to 400. This Congress and any in a similar environment will not "create legislation if Congress agrees with the agency." It's beyond silly to even say that's a reasonable concept.

Completely difficult and a recipe for gumming up the federal government - which was entirely the purpose, let's be clear about that.

Yeah, certainly. It's long been Republicans' goal to make the government utterly inefficient and ultimately they want to mold it to serve the people and corporations lining their pockets.

 

[zztop]

This is a very long, and also horrifying read, about chevron

What SCOTUS just did to net neutrality, the right to repair, the environment, and more

The end of Chevron deference will touch on everything from broadband policy to climate change.

www.theverge.com