This drastically affects my practice.

I have not, but will read the case multiple times.

What and how is Chevron replaced.

Talk about Judicial Activism.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...3pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

What a win for America!

I have just read the case for the first time.

The case gives no direction on how a court is to interpret a statute-regulatory conflict in question.

The underlying regulatory issue in the case is not resolved by the opinion.

On its face, the case restores the Non-Delegation Doctrine.

We cannot write a statute the details every minute how the stated goals of the statute are to be preformed.

The Affordable Care Act was 1000 plus pages. Do you want bills to be 20k pages long?

Judges are not equipped to answer these technical, fact questions.

This case creates chaos. Is every ref upheld since 1984 under Chevron now unconstitutional? Are we going to send everyone of those regs upheld through Chevron back through the courts since 1984?


You have no idea what you are taking about?

How do you propose we resolve statutory-regulatory ambiguity now? This Court does not tell us.

It is not just the Fed Government. Chevron was the framework for every state.

You have not read any of these cases:
Chevron, Skidmore, nor this case. You just regurgitate bumper sticker talking points.

Good ridden to chevon

The Majority and Concurrences quote Marbury v Madison.

The is my biggest problem with how law school teaches students. They bring to ignore dictia.


Do not let anyone tell you dictia is not a rule of law.

Dictia is a rule of law waiting to be cited again.

Unless, one uses it, its effects or strength can never be known.

Cite it and see if someone salutes.

Yes, good riddance.

Double good riddance!!!!

A win for our Republic!


.

Anything that stops govt overreach is good to me.

What is the replacement?

Is it like the GOPer wish to crush Obamacare, with no plan at all for replacement?

Or is it that no replacement is the desired goal, IOW chaos.

This is the result of long-term planning by conservative think tanks and other orgs, and represents conservative ideology to the core.

It's part of project 2025, but SCOTUS will do just fine.

Which is worse - agencies doing their job to implement and enforce legislative laws, deemed overreach by libertarian types. Or, agencies rendered incapable of administering legislative laws, due to arbitrary constraints, per SCOTUS precedent, nullifying long-standing workable administration.

Which is the real dystopia? Which is likely to result in individual freedoms?

Suppose I want clean rivers to fish in. Can I count on congress to regulate it, assuming a GOPer congress would even set that as important? Or is the EPA best suited? Gut the EPA, and what's left?

Suppose some millionaire AH in Montana does a land fill on wetlands, ignoring regs forbidding, and is told to stop by the EPA, and pay restorations. Then he sues and SCOTUS rules in his favor. It's the wild west from thereon.

Is that really freedom in the broad sense?

There were several notable people who tried to kill the EPA, namely Scott Pruit, Ryan Zinke, James Watts, and Anne Gorsuch. They all failed.

Her son, Neil Gorsuch has succeeded and he's proud.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...7de0945fce843e&ei=16

Neil Gorsuch Cheers Supreme Court Placing 'Tombstone' on 40-Year Precedent
Story by Katherine Fung • 7h • 3 min read

Mangina......this isn't about killing anything its about not allowing them to make law by fiat....

But since you worship government and can't think for yourself.....well I guess you should be a sad old woman...

Chevron and Skidmore did not allow agencies to make law by fiat.

Chevron and Shodmore required an agency not to act arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious in feeling on the blanks, the how, left by legislation.

Of course, you have never red those cases.

The regulation being attacked in the case has not been addressed in the opinion, only the analysis using Chevron and Skidmore of lower courts.

Again, how are agencies supposed to comply the mandates set in legislation.

Do you want 10k page bills setting out every how?

Of you have never read Chevron nor Skidmore, you really do not have an opinion.

Of course, in Jtex’s world reading is feminine and feminine is bad.

I've seen government workings and corruption first hand from inside and outside the agencies involved. Usually I was representing a contractor getting screwed.

But the Supreme Court has left an unworkable mess. Every time someone has a dispute, they'll have to go to court.

Whoops! Judges are already overworked, according to them. Guess we're going to need a lot more federal judges and appellate justices.

Maybe we'll have to add Supreme Court justices...

There is an are pending now to overturn the administrative order making (think an ALJ like Fed Black Lung or Immigration) on right to jury trials grounds.

Another issue long resolved.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
There is an are pending now ....

whoa, there joe -- could you slow down, and translate to english?

There is a case.

Read the transcripts you were so concerned about what the President said to the Special Council?

I bet not.

Have you read Chevron or Skidmore yet? No? How can you have any idea about difference to administrative rule making?

You do realize that the Courts were always empowered to strike down arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious rule making according to Chevron.

The position of the Majority that Chevron kept courts from meaningful review violating Separation of Powers is not correct. That is an error clear in the caselaw.

Name another Court that has overturned so many multi decades precedents. That is what the far right wanted and wants. The re-litigation of every loads since 1937.

Judicial activism the right declared was improper.

Why, should the Court maintain the Incorporation Doctrine and Fundamental Rights Doctrine for the 2nd? It has only been incorporated since 2008ish. Then it was not the right to handguns that was held fundamental, but the right to self-defense being fundamental required incorporation on the 2nd. That is not my opinion. That is the words Justice Scilla wrote in Heller and McDonald.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
There is an are pending now ....

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
There is a case.

yeah... that was tots clear - absolutely anyone that wrote it could understand it -- "there is an are"..

blink if you are move the left side of your body

my, why so defensive? i didn't ask for dets on "a case", i asked you what the heck you were saying...

but, if we are going to sling stuff at the wall to see what sticks,
here's a tear jerker from compsci 101
https://www.amazon.com/TCP-Ill...3/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

and if you can't get enough of the writing, there's volume 2
https://www.amazon.com/TCP-Ill...d_i=0134760131&psc=1

I won't include volume 3, as reading all three is considered to be a punishment in the "crimes against humanity" class

But, if you are going to puff up and beat your chest about the arcana of your profession, let me share some of the intro books in mine...

"WTF, jeff?" .. sure sure ... it goes to show that you can be a user of systems that you don't have to understand?

but wait, there's more -- since i hold a couple degrees (yes, i am aware, you do to) in unrelated fields, here's another anti-insomnia page burner{sic}
https://www.amazon.com/Interme...ipbooks%2C100&sr=1-4

ahh, the foundation documents of both of my professional crafts .. meant to cause brain damage in undergrads AND grad students alike

I bet President Biden still has enough grip on reality to know Texas cannot unilaterally secede from the Union, and that Texas is not going to gain acquiescence to leave the Union?

Do you?

I got pages into it and then realized I was only halfway through the syllabus. I don't get paid to read volumes of legal bloviating by the Court anymore, so I'll have to pass. They never did teach the virtues of brevity in law school.

I'll have to rely on knowledgeable analysts like our friend LHeym until someone shows up willing to pay me several hundred per hour.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I bet President Biden still has enough grip on reality to know Texas cannot unilaterally secede from the Union, and that Texas is not going to gain acquiescence to leave the Union?

Do you?

uhm, what? you know there's a thread for that, where I said Texas couldn't leave the union by a Texas vote, and AND YOU AGREED WITH ME...

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I bet President Biden still has enough grip on reality to know Texas cannot unilaterally secede from the Union, and that Texas is not going to gain acquiescence to leave the Union?

Do you?

uhm, what? you know there's a thread for that, where I said Texas couldn't leave the union by a Texas vote, and AND YOU AGREED WITH ME...

Jeffe,
Joshua is still grieving over having his power card reduced.

Unfortunately, it seems that deference to precedent never was all that absolute. In Roe v. Wade they changed from state regulation of abortion to it being a found constitutional right... ignoring precedent.


Now the court is overturning those precedents.

The court never was all that into the bedrock of law. It always has meant what the current SCOTUS says it is... until the next group changes its minds.

I always thought that the way it was supposed to work was SCOTUS says what the law means and it was done... and if we didn't like it, we changed the law.

There have been a long string of SCOTUS opinions that made little or no sense that were done purely for political expediency... Dred Scott being a prime example.

I don't disagree that the system we have is about as good as can humanly exist, but don't think that it hasn't always had its warts.

While the courts were able to strike down arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious rules under Chevron, Chevron did set the burden of proof that it was arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious at a very high level. Look at the continual relitigation of something as simple as trophy importation under CITIES that has essentially been continually under some sort of court hold for what, 20 years now?

What seems to be upsetting the current crop of activists is that now the judicial activism is on the other foot.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
There is a case.

Read the transcripts you were so concerned about what the President said to the Special Council?

I bet not.

Have you read Chevron or Skidmore yet? No? How can you have any idea about difference to administrative rule making?

You do realize that the Courts were always empowered to strike down arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious rule making according to Chevron.

The position of the Majority that Chevron kept courts from meaningful review violating Separation of Powers is not correct. That is an error clear in the caselaw.

Name another Court that has overturned so many multi decades precedents. That is what the far right wanted and wants. The re-litigation of every loads since 1937.

Judicial activism the right declared was improper.

Why, should the Court maintain the Incorporation Doctrine and Fundamental Rights Doctrine for the 2nd? It has only been incorporated since 2008ish. Then it was not the right to handguns that was held fundamental, but the right to self-defense being fundamental required incorporation on the 2nd. That is not my opinion. That is the words Justice Scilla wrote in Heller and McDonald.

Actually, Stare Decisis is the reverence to precedent.

Alito mislead the Senate when he told them Plan Parenthood v Case was entitled to the application of State Decisis. It was not Roe that was overturned.

Your post is nothing but support for Judicsl Activism.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I bet President Biden still has enough grip on reality to know Texas cannot unilaterally secede from the Union, and that Texas is not going to gain acquiescence to leave the Union?

Do you?

uhm, what? you know there's a thread for that, where I said Texas couldn't leave the union by a Texas vote, and AND YOU AGREED WITH ME...

Jeffe,
Joshua is still grieving over having his power card reduced.

I do my know what a power card is. Jeff gas argued I a very long thread why Texas should be able to seceded. This as stupid, more so, than ME arguing Trump was disqualified by 14th Amendment. At lest, that one got to the S.ct., with a state court agreeing with him. I am sure we can find a Texas court to go along w Texas secession.

Just an example of what really being out of touch is. That a state can leave the Union unilaterally or by a simple majority vote of Congress.

If Jeff wants to call me Joe, that is fine. At least President Biden and I know Texas is not leaving the Union. Technically, the illegal act of the Texas legislature did not severe the citizens of Texas status of U.S. citizens.

Call me Joe, at least I do not support the man and current party who called for the suspension of the Constitution. I do not support, but accept they have the looser to do so, engage in the most judicial activism we have seen from a Court in 30-50 years.

I’ll ask again since no one answers it, “When is the last time in your lifetime you have seen one Court overturn so many decades old precedents?” The answer is never.

I hope a new return to normalcy that restores our Constitutional framework and understanding.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I do my know what a power card is. Jeff gas argued I a very long thread why Texas should be able to seceded.

hmm, weird, (assuming you MEANT to say "jeff HAS argued IN) ... tell you what, let me put the conversation AND links below this response - there is NO WHERE that I have said Texas could unilaterally leave the Union .. NO WHERE --

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

Just an example of what really being out of touch is. That a state can leave the Union unilaterally or by a simple majority vote of Congress.

WEIRD -- that wasn't the conversation that we had, IN PRINT - Tell you what, i'll paypal you $100 bucks if you show me a post where *I* ever said Texas could leave the Union based on a secession vote. If you MISSED the dripping disdain I have for the sovereign citizens pushing that in the 80s/90s, I am sorry that I didn't include emojis. I wasn't foolishly demanding that a SIMPLE majority could approve anything, i do suggest you refresh yourself with the FACTS as presented - I said that the Tyler-Texas treaty might not be valid in the first place, as it didn't meet the 2/3 requirement of Art II, section 2, and was a consideration at the time. i NEVER said "simple majority" nor did I say even a treaty, i SAID it wouldn't require a ConCon, I said it could be an amendment - Oh, though I would expect you to have a violent reaction to a treaty being approved on simple majority, based on your reaction to things not being "perfect" -

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

If Jeff wants to call me Joe, that is fine.

Nah, Bruv, I called you joe because you WROTE gibberish

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

Call me Joe, ...

https://forums.accuratereloadi...501043872#7501043872

Just to remind you of what *I* actually said on the matter -- you might refresh your memory, as in this case, it's rather different than the facts would read

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The only way Texas can leave the Union, save its state government ripping its citizens from the Union by violence, is if a Constitutional Convention was called. The other states could then approve Texas withdrawal from the Union.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It would take a Convention as no state can leave unilaterally.
...
Only through a Constitutional Convention can the will of the states be expressed.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
There have been "calls" for a concon since the 80s / -- though once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back, and literally EVERYTHING can be on the table, as the result could be an entirely new Const

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
They required 2/3rds vote of the States.

I agree we can let Texas go by an Amendment. I done said that.

quote:

Of course, in Jtex’s world reading is feminine and feminine is bad.

You are and will remain an illiterate idiot, junior.

"Joe" I really like that! It fits well!!!

No, it’s recognition that judicial activism has been with us since the beginning, and is while not good, probably not removable.

Who was the Bush sr appointee who came across as hyper conservative yet once confirmed was quite the opposite? Yet I didn’t hear continual calls to impeach him over “deceiving the senate.”

Fundamentally, it’s acknowledging that the system is capable of making decisions illogically for the individuals involved personal reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Actually, Stare Decisis is the reverence to precedent.

Alito mislead the Senate when he told them Plan Parenthood v Case was entitled to the application of State Decisis. It was not Roe that was overturned.

Your post is nothing but support for Judicsl Activism.

ah, crickets i see --

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
No, it’s recognition that judicial activism has been with us since the beginning, and is while not good, probably not removable.

Who was the Bush sr appointee who came across as hyper conservative yet once confirmed was quite the opposite? Yet I didn’t hear continual calls to impeach him over “deceiving the senate.”

Fundamentally, it’s acknowledging that the system is capable of making decisions illogically for the individuals involved personal reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Actually, Stare Decisis is the reverence to precedent.

Alito mislead the Senate when he told them Plan Parenthood v Case was entitled to the application of State Decisis. It was not Roe that was overturned.

Your post is nothing but support for Judicsl Activism.

Don't forget Sandra Day O'Connor either, I'm sure Ronald Reagan is tickled with her legacy....

quote:

In the landmark Supreme Court ruling, Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council.
The court decided in 1984 that judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous parts of statutes.
The idea was that if Congress passes a law where something is unclear - or there is a “gap” - it is up to an agency to fill in the gap.
In practice, that gave arms of the federal government such as the Environmental Protection Agency the freedom to create and implement rules without fear of protracted legal battles.

Source of quote

Hear hear to the end of that^^^BS!

And now, back to regular order as the Founders intended.

How we ever got such a ruling, empowering NON elected agencies to that degree, always blew my mind.