Did Elon tell you this was good? Because if you care about the environment this is bad.
Supreme Court Overrules Chevron Doctrine, Imperiling an Array of Federal Rules
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Did you miss the democratic part? They get voted out the next election. Judges can't be voted out. What happens if they've lost their way like Thomas and Alito have?
Or the other side of that coin is, pass an ambiguous statute that can be interpreted in a thousand different ways, and allow your hand picked left leaning bureaucrats to create enforcement provisions that the left knows would never pass congress and which might hurt the election chances of some of the politicians that voted for it. That's what is happening today.
Those Bernie Bros sitting out 2016 or voting for Jill Stein sure showed that email lady.
The agency bureaucrats?, No they don't,... They are not elected officials and in most cases they reside in power in perpetuity..
If he doesn't get it then he's clearly right, despite him throwing money at a degree it appears he got zero education.
Things started to go to hell when the Eisenhower generation passed (those born between 1890-1910). They remembered the libertarian paradise that was America before the Great Depression.
People don't get what a complete disaster this ruling is for the way they live their lives. Absolutely have no idea because they just accept as normal the way things have always been, the food is not going to be poisoned, the water will be safe to drink, the cars safe to drive.
Horrible horrible horrible.
Silence does not equal permission.
The government gave the agency bureaucrats too much power in 1984 and they have been abusing that power every since.
For almost 40 years they have been pushing the limit to interrupt poorly written laws that are over expansive and non specific. Only recently have the courts starting pushing back.
The government can't be trusted to do the right thing and the Court has finally had enough.
The government gave the agency bureaucrats too much power in 1984 and they have been abusing that power every since.
For almost 40 years they have been pushing the limit to interrupt poorly written laws that are over expansive and non specific. Only recently have the courts starting pushing back.
The government can't be trusted to do the right thing and the Court has finally had enough.
Federal administration of local public schools. Dems / D of Education turned them into indoctrination centers for the Democratic party for starters.
There is a ridiculous 200(?) person administrative building in Cedar Rapids where those partisan bureaucrats do what exactly? They vote in their own self interest. Allegiance to the Party is all that is asked.
Fire them all and increase teacher pay I say.
The whole liberal indoctrination in schools is so laughable while the religious right does exactly that. You created a boogeyman so you could do the exact thing you said was the problem. So your bullshit example is just that.
This ruling is not nearly as important as the overdramatic left-leaning Twitter pundits are proclaiming. Chevron has effectively been dead for a decade already.
You’re a fvcking moran. If public schools could “indoctrinate” students, they’d have them all reading great literature every single free moment.
You’ve opted to ignore the experts your entire adult life. What could possibly go wrong when we allow all regulations to be disregarded?
Surgeon General can still ask for the warning on packs, yes?You’ve opted to ignore the experts your entire adult life. What could possibly go wrong when we allow all regulations to be disregarded?
This just allows the company to challenge the validity in court, whereas before they couldn’t?
I’m asking- that’s just my understanding
My thought isn’t that deep. We’ve got a country full of people who ignore professionals and experts all the time. And now the courts will be the adjudicators of regulations if they’re brought before them.
Doesn’t seem optimal.
What is the Chevron deference and why has it been overruled?
The Supreme Court has overturned a longstanding legal precedent, and weakened agencies like the EPA.
www.bbc.com
You got to grow up and live in the world of the modern regulatory state created by the grandparents and great-grandparents, and you people are cluelessly burning it all down because your brains have been poisoned by a bought and paid for media machine. Now, the chances of your body getting poisoned are going to skyrocket.
Again, everything started going to hell when the people who remembered what the libertarian paradise was really like exited the scene. Nobody left who remembers what it was really like.
Having finally had a chance to review, some high level thoughts and reactions:
1. Full disclosure - I support the result.
2. I found roberts’ opinion ok but not great - a little surprised at how much he built it around article iii power/duty, without reference to article I benefits. I’d have led with the apa instead.
3. Gorsuchs opinion is better in its detail of history and context, and evolution. His discussion of brand x and buffing ton is a brutal takedown.
4. An odd opinion in that almost no reference to the case of the plaintiffs.
5. From my perspective, what I like about this is that it “should” change the way agency counsel work: Rather than searching for a “plausible” but clearly weak interpretation to hang a desired program of a political appointee from (particularly where said appointee hasn’t been able to get their authority from congress), counsel now has to focus on what authority the statute actually provides, because that’s the standard she (rightfully) will be held to. (See for example AstraZeneca v becerra discussion of the agency’s advisory opinion on contract pharmacies got how this isn’t supposed to work).
6. As I’ve said elsewhere, this doesn’t preclude certain explicit delegations, or undercut deference to agencies factual findings or policy choices. Just their legal interpretations
1. Full disclosure - I support the result.
2. I found roberts’ opinion ok but not great - a little surprised at how much he built it around article iii power/duty, without reference to article I benefits. I’d have led with the apa instead.
3. Gorsuchs opinion is better in its detail of history and context, and evolution. His discussion of brand x and buffing ton is a brutal takedown.
4. An odd opinion in that almost no reference to the case of the plaintiffs.
5. From my perspective, what I like about this is that it “should” change the way agency counsel work: Rather than searching for a “plausible” but clearly weak interpretation to hang a desired program of a political appointee from (particularly where said appointee hasn’t been able to get their authority from congress), counsel now has to focus on what authority the statute actually provides, because that’s the standard she (rightfully) will be held to. (See for example AstraZeneca v becerra discussion of the agency’s advisory opinion on contract pharmacies got how this isn’t supposed to work).
6. As I’ve said elsewhere, this doesn’t preclude certain explicit delegations, or undercut deference to agencies factual findings or policy choices. Just their legal interpretations
SCOTUS is NOT an expert in everything government wise. Taking away the decision making from the experts in their relative field of experience is beyond stupid.
If you did your research, you would know the facts. EPA discovered the problem after the State of Michigan and other local officials failed to find the problem.
Keep throwing darts though.....you might get a bull's eye eventually.
Federal judges are saying to Congress: put the details of the regulations in the law.
It's not that hard.
Congress has abdicated that responsibility. You and I both know that.
According to their own mission statement…they FAILED.
Our Mission
The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.EPA works to ensure that:
- Americans have clean air, land and water.
EPA didn't control Flint's decision to go off one water source to another less safe water source.
That's why I love this decision. The bureaucrats have WAAAAY too much power.
You are right about your thought being not deep.
Experts can always weigh in. Freedom is about people making choices, and having to live with those choices.
Then why did the EPA official resign if it was just some rogue city worker who caused this?
Oh, and apparently the EPA was involved in a pissing match for at least 6 months with the Michigan DEQ over how to resolve the issue. 6 months while children were being poisoned. Oh, well. SCOTUS sucks, amiright?
EPA stayed silent on Flint’s tainted water
Region 5 EPA administrator defends agency and says state’s DEQ resisted calls for corrosion controls in Flint’s water
www.detroitnews.com
