Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (2 Viewers)

[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:

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I tell you what. Go move next door to a petrochemical plant in Cancer Alley.

Property should be rather cheap in that area.

 

[SaintForLife]

Wrong, but unsurprising. Do you have any idea what is involved in refining crude? Manufacturing plastics? Processing food, processing rare earth minerals?

I tell you what. Go move next door to a petrochemical plant in Cancer Alley.

You act as if Congress can't get those same experts in to advise them when they create the laws. Congress never should have needed their power to the Executive branch.

Unelected bureaucrats had no business interpreting laws and enforcing their own rules and in this case making someone pay for their own enforcement.

 

[bird]

You act as if Congress can't get those same experts in to advise them when they create the laws. Congress never should have needed their power to the Executive branch.

Unelected bureaucrats had no business interpreting laws and enforcing their own rules and in this case making someone pay for their own enforcement.

So, as situations change and science advances then congress, which can’t legislate its way out of a wet paper bag, has to call in experts to create new legislation.

You’re worse than a fool.

This SCOTUS will go down in history as worse than the one which decided Plessy vs Ferguson.

 

[bird]

You act as if Congress can't get those same experts in to advise them when they create the laws. Congress never should have needed their power to the Executive branch.

Unelected bureaucrats had no business interpreting laws and enforcing their own rules and in this case making someone pay for their own enforcement.

When “business” actually considers its so-called “most valuable asset: our people” instead of profit uber alles then and only then might you have a point. And, yes, violations means that business must pay because they won’t and don’t give a damn otherwise. It is time to stop treating business as anything other than a legal construct that must submit to the state. A business is not a human being.

 

[SaintForLife]

So, as situations change and science advances then congress, which can’t legislate its way out of a wet paper bag, has to call in experts to create new legislation.

You’re worse than a fool.

This SCOTUS will go down in history as worse than the one which decided Plessy vs Ferguson.

So we should let unelected bureaucrats interpret law and enforce their own rules just because Congress can't get their act together?

It looks like Congress will be forced to get their act together.

 

[bird]

So we should let unelected bureaucrats interpret law and enforce their own rules just because Congress can't get their act together?

It looks like Congress will be forced to get their act together.

No, you fool, congress does not have the time nor the ability to react to changes quickly enough. But I don’t expect you to understand that.

 

[SaintForLife]

When “business” actually considers its so-called “most valuable asset: our people” instead of profit uber alles then and only then might you have a point. And, yes, violations means that business must pay because they won’t and don’t give a damn otherwise. It is time to stop treating business as anything other than a legal construct that must submit to the state. A business is not a human being.

I agree that many businesses value profits over people. You can still regulate those businesses, but it has to be done legally. Allowing those unelected bureaucrats to basically make up their own laws from the vague laws Congress passed wasn't constitutional and shouldn't have been allowed to go on for 40 years.

 

[bird]

I agree that many businesses value profits over people. You can still regulate those businesses, but it has to be done legally. Allowing those unelected bureaucrats to basically make up their own laws from the vague laws Congress passed wasn't constitutional and shouldn't have been allowed to go on for 40 years.

It was done legally. The SCOTUS just decided on a whim to say it wasn’t which every one of them knows is false but the corruption is too strong.

 

[SaintForLife]

It was done legally. The SCOTUS just decided on a whim to say it wasn’t which every one of them knows is false but the corruption is too strong.

Can you point out where in the constitution that it gives the Executive branch the power to interpret laws?

 

[bird]

Can you point out where in the constitution that it gives the Executive branch the power to interpret laws?

Incorrect question. First, the constitution gives congress the power to establish laws which they did. Second, the legal establishment of regulatory agencies done by congress permits agencies to do their job means that they do get to regulate.

The executive branch is not interpreting laws by regulatory agencies doing the job that was created for them to do by a legal act of congress.

Next, congress must pass legislation that defines good behavior regarding judicial appointments.

After that, congress must eliminate limited liability for C-suite and top management as well as boards of directors for corporations.

 

[CoolBrees]

So the Chevron decision required companies to provide their own environmental and Health & Safety (typically a person with an Industrial Hygienist master's degree) inspectors and pay them to be the third party oversight for the government.

The reasoning was it is too big a burden to enforce rules and inspect all of the hazardous plants in America, and companies aren't going to police themselves unless they are forced under threat of penalty.

It was a carve out so the American people don't have to babysit corporations to make sure they don't pollute. They had over 100 years to start policing themselves and they refused.

Now, the government is responsible to conduct inspections and pay inspectors again. Meaning either they hire tons of inspectors (again like before Chevron) and have the right scream about federal jobs (again), or they don't have any inspectors outside of regional offices for complaints and oversight. Which means shirt holes like Alabama and Mississippi will get even worse.

The south will suffer the most for this as they have lax environmental laws to begin with and now they have no one watching them.

 

[SaintForLife]

Incorrect question. First, the constitution gives congress the power to establish laws which they did. Second, the legal establishment of regulatory agencies done by congress permits agencies to do their job means that they do get to regulate.

What happens is Congress purposely passes vague laws and let's those agencies interpret the law. Congress is too lazy to do the homework and pass the specific laws themselves.

That's not how our system of government works. As I said before, the executive branch isn't allowed to interpret laws.

The executive branch is not interpreting laws by regulatory agencies doing the job that was created for them to do by a legal act of congress.

Yes they have been interpreting laws which they aren't supposed to do based on the constitution.

Next, congress must pass legislation that defines good behavior regarding judicial appointments.

Can Congress start on themselves first?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Incorrect question. First, the constitution gives congress the power to establish laws which they did. Second, the legal establishment of regulatory agencies done by congress permits agencies to do their job means that they do get to regulate.

The executive branch is not interpreting laws by regulatory agencies doing the job that was created for them to do by a legal act of congress.

Next, congress must pass legislation that defines good behavior regarding judicial appointments.

After that, congress must eliminate limited liability for C-suite and top management as well as boards of directors for corporations.

See, you get this because you're an adult bird. You're not a baby bird scarfing down any and all information being regurgitated to you, like baby bird does.

The Heritage Foundation's hand picked justices just gave the corporate wing of the corpo-christo-fascists free reign to destroy us and our environment...all for the love of money...you know...that same love of money that the Christian bible says is the root of all kinds of evil and is idolatry...you know...that idolatry thing that's forbidden by the 10 commandments...you know...that 10 commandments thing that the corpo-christo-fascists insist everyone has to learn...you know...because our laws are supposedly based on them.

No wonder the corpo-christo-fascists are such angry, hate filled people. I'd be angry and full of hate too if I had to constantly and frantically perform mental gymnastics to keep all the contradictory spinning plates of my belief system from crashing down on me. That's exhausting and aggravating work.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

This SCOTUS will go down in history as worse than the one which decided Plessy vs Ferguson.

I don't know if I would go that far with the Taney court

 

[DaveXA]

I don't know if I would go that far with the Taney court

Yeah, it's a coin flip at best.

 

[bird]

What happens is Congress purposely passes vague laws and let's those agencies interpret the law. Congress is too lazy to do the homework and pass the specific laws themselves.

That's not how our system of government works. As I said before, the executive branch isn't allowed to interpret laws.

Yes they have been interpreting laws which they aren't supposed to do based on the constitution.

Can Congress start on themselves first?

Incorrect. Establishment of regulatory agencies was done by congress legally and correctly.

Incorrect. The agencies do not create law. They do not interpret law. They enforce the law that was written to establish their existence by adhering to the mandate which was established by the legislation that created them.

Beyond that the SCOTUS has no expertise in interpreting law beyond the personal belief system of the individual justices. Thus they should not apply any constitutional reading at all. Because they can’t. The document is not set up that way. The constitution establishes a government, period. It forbids, in the initial document, exactly three things which are religious tests to hold office, bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Beyond that the legislative branch creates legislation which becomes law. Included in that as time has progressed and technological and social change has occurred are laws that establish regulatory bodies to deal with those changes. Within the creation of those bodies is the power to regulate certain things such as environmental impact etc. This is not despite your fevered dreams interpreting law. Is is establishing regulation within the mandate created by the legislation that created them.

You’re simplistic whining aside congress cannot write detailed legislation for every single instance that occurs. Oh, some food plant had a salmonella problem. Let’s write legislation (taking how flocking long) to address what to do to prevent it, how to punish a company that doesn’t prevent it, how to inspect to insure that said company is doing things correctly. There that solves the problem. Oh, you say there is a listeria outbreak? Well, let’s have congress write legislation (taking how flocking long) to do the same damn thing as the salmonella problem. Or, maybe, a better idea, which has been done already is to establish regulatory bodies that have the time, resources and, hopefully, the people to address such issues quickly under the concept of General Welfare as stated in the constitution.

The SCOTUS acted stupidly.

 

[SaintForLife]

Incorrect. Establishment of regulatory agencies was done by congress legally and correctly.

I didn't say anything about that.

Incorrect. The agencies do not create law. They do not interpret law. They enforce the law that was written to establish their existence by adhering to the mandate which was established by the legislation that created them.

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.

Beyond that the SCOTUS has no expertise in interpreting law beyond the personal belief system of the individual justices. Thus they should not apply any constitutional reading at all. Because they can’t.

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.

The document is not set up that way. The constitution establishes a government, period. It forbids, in the initial document, exactly three things which are religious tests to hold office, bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Beyond that the legislative branch creates legislation which becomes law. Included in that as time has progressed and technological and social change has occurred are laws that establish regulatory bodies to deal with those changes. Within the creation of those bodies is the power to regulate certain things such as environmental impact etc. This is not despite your fevered dreams interpreting law. Is is establishing regulation within the mandate created by the legislation that created them.

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

You’re simplistic whining aside congress cannot write detailed legislation for every single instance that occurs. Oh, some food plant had a salmonella problem. Let’s write legislation (taking how flocking long) to address what to do to prevent it, how to punish a company that doesn’t prevent it, how to inspect to insure that said company is doing things correctly. There that solves the problem. Oh, you say there is a listeria outbreak? Well, let’s have congress write legislation (taking how flocking long) to do the same damn thing as the salmonella problem. Or, maybe, a better idea, which has been done already is to establish regulatory bodies that have the time, resources and, hopefully, the people to address such issues quickly under the concept of General Welfare as stated in the constitution.

The SCOTUS acted stupidly.

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.

 

[LA - L.A.]

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.

You're just flat out wrong. Congress passes flexible and adaptable regulations that are goal specific rather than execution specific, so that regulatory agencies have the ability to adapt to a constantly changing environment to meet the specific goals of the regulations.

They do that because it's the only way to effectively protect against rampant polluting, unsafe products, and over exploitation, destruction and exhaustion of resources.

I get it though you love toxic waste, lethally faulty products, and the destruction of our natural resources. You're problem is that you've been conned by corporate public relations media. If you stopped listening to corporate public relations media you wouldn't be fooled into being so wrong on this issue.