Supreme Court Imperils an Array of Federal Rules

[Snowman]

I know this is Political, but Everyone should see it :

A foundational 1984 decision required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, underpinning regulations on health care, safety and the environment.

"

The decision is the latest upending longstanding precedents.​

The Supreme Court swept aside a longstanding legal precedent on Friday, reducing the power of executive agencies and endangering countless regulations by transferring power from the executive branch to Congress and the courts. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said that “agencies have no special competence” and that judges should determine the meaning of federal laws."

...

"The precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, is one of the most cited in American law, underpinning 70 Supreme Court decisions and roughly 17,000 in the lower courts. Critics of regulatory authority immediately hailed the decision, suggesting it could open new avenues to challenge federal rules in areas ranging from abortion pills to the environment.

The court has now overturned major precedents in each of the last three terms: on abortion in 2022, on affirmative action in 2023 and now on the power of administrative agencies. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling amounted to the Supreme Court’s latest judicial power grab. “A rule of judicial humility,” she wrote, “gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.”"

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/06/28/us/supreme-court-chevron

 

[Supervisor42]

Simplified:

"The case started with fishermen: The court heard two almost identical cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. Both cases involved a 1976 federal law that requires herring boats to carry federal observers to collect data used to prevent overfishing.
Under a 2020 regulation interpreting the law, owners of the boats were required not only to transport the observers but also to pay $700 a day for their oversight. Fishermen in New Jersey and Rhode Island — backed by two conservative organizations that decry the “administrative state” — sued, saying the 1976 law did not authorize the relevant agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, to impose the fee."

Basically, it is bringing an end to the era of 'govt regulations' having unlimited power, and the people having no recourse.

 

[Sourdough]

Basically, it is bringing an end to the era of 'govt regulations' having unlimited power, and the people having no recourse.

About "FORKING" Time.

 

[Snowman]

hmmmmm : "transferring power from the executive branch to Congress"...!!!

 

[Oddcaliber]

There's going to be a lot of upset 3 letter agencies! LOL

 

[12icemaker]

Yeah the thing is if congress is any better place to form rules these days.

dims seem to make their own rules about what they can do no matter what their position.

 

[angie_nrs]

I'm not 100% sure how to interpret this. I think on one hand it's good b/c it should basically kill the power of 'mandates' that are not laws which have been enacted by unelected people. The recent Covid mandates show just how powerful those mandates could be by those who abide by them. Many businesses complied due to the fear of losing their licenses to do business. There are several lawsuits going on right now that are fighting those mandaes. I wonder how they will shake out now? Most of them looked like they were going to go in favor of the businesses launching the lawsuits so maybe the SCOTUS was just trying to get in front of all those suits?

OTOH, if power is transferred to Congress, that could create a huge mess. With our crooked 2 party system, I guess it doesn't really matter.....but ignoring that, power in congress has a tendency to change from time to time with D's and R's being in power. If that's the case, coudln't many of the laws be changed depending upon who was in charge of congress at the time? So, what's legal last year could be flipped next year to being legal at the whim of Congress. It would basically upend the legal system as it is. Judges would have to study all bills going thru congress in order to do their jobs competently at any given moment, no?

Overall, I think this is a good thing. I'm glad the fishermen won the case. I hopoe they get retribution. However, I think this might have more broad implications than we can imagine right now.

 

[Jim Costa]

Great Recap Summary:
SCOTUS Just Destroyed the Fourth Branch of Government The Administrative Deep-State, and Restored Power Back to our Constitutional Freedoms!

 

[Snowman]

For every law congress passes, there are probably 500 regulations set by unelected bureaucrats.

• This immediately affects hundreds of Federal bureaucracy agencies.

• Any and all public health agencies

• Any and all public safety agencies

• Any and all environmental agencies, including the EPA

• The Food & Drug Administration. Etc.

I can’t emphatically express this enough, THIS IS A VERY BIG NAIL in the coffin of the Deep State!


THIS IS undeniable proof that Donald Trump has been saving America with his SCOTUS picks…

 

[dademoss]

For every law congress passes, there are probably 500 regulations set by unelected bureaucrats.

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

I can’t emphatically express this enough, THIS IS A VERY BIG NAIL in the coffin of the Deep State!


THIS IS undeniable proof that Donald Trump has been saving America with his SCOTUS picks…

If the deep state actually gives a .

 

[Haertig]

power in congress has a tendency to change from time to time with D's and R's being in power. If that's the case, coudln't many of the laws be changed depending upon who was in charge of congress at the time?

But compare that to now. Regulations are changed all the time already - by unelected people in these agencies. In the future, congress will have to do this changing. Their agenda will be clogged up mercilessly if they attempt to regulate every little thing as is done today (a clogged agenda is a good thing IMHO - it stops them from making more destructive laws).

Things have come to this because of liberal overreach in regulations. Like the EPA "regulating" a mud puddle on a farmers land as a "protected wetland". Like forcing fishermen to pay for someone to ride along on their boat that they probably don't even want there in the first place. This overreach has now been smacked down. If congress wants to charge fishermen to host a government ride-along on their boats, then congress can take the time to vote for that. My bet is that they won't. And thus this piddly regulation crap will ride off into the sunset.

 

[Jim Costa]

Dadenosss;
If SCOTUS rules this week in favor of the Brunson Brothers petition,
There will no longer be a Deep State.

The Chevron ruling took away their power.
A Brunson favorable ruling will expell all/most of their actors
employed by the Federal Government.

 

[Haertig]

A Brunson favorable ruling will expell all/most of their actors
employed by the Federal Government.

That's not going to happen.

 

[Jim Costa]

Heartig:

To assist the courts in clearing out unconstitutional laws,
the people already have the power to do this themselves.
It is called "The Jurist Right of Nullification".

We have just forgotten that we have that power and the current illegal courts do not remind us of that power. That is about to change however.

It is the right of just ONE juror to declare a law it is to considered to decide in a case before it, to declare that law unconstitutional, creating a mistrial at that moment.

Once the law is declared unconstitutional, the defendant is free to go.
That is how the Agencies will lose their teeth.

The above right comes from Common Law, which supersedes the Constitution and thus is incorporated in it.

 

[Haertig]

I was commenting on the "favorable ruling will expel..." part. No. A favorable ruling might expose some people to trials for treason or whatever, but the ruling itself will not expel anybody. They'd have to be charged and found guilty first. A favorable ruling may open the door to people being subsequently charged, but that's the extent of what it would do.

My opinion is that they would not be charged, even if the ruling facilitated that. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Jim Costa]

Haertig: Sorry, I misunderstood you.

Those refusing to take the Oath of Office will be terminated.

Those who do take the Oath are put under notice that if they intentionally
obstruct the Constitution, they are committing Treason.

 

[dademoss]

Dadenosss;
If SCOTUS rules this week in favor of the Brunson Brothers petition,
There will no longer be a Deep State.

The Chevron ruling took away their power.
A Brunson favorable ruling will expell all/most of their actors
employed by the Federal Government.

I'll believe that when and if it happens. I expect no change, they will ignore the ruling as they ignore anything they don't like. Might change if the executive branch takes action, but not until then.

How many times has the Potato in Chief tried to cancel student loans? Change a word or two, and let the courts decide yet again.