The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading The Political Forum The Supreme Court looks set to make Steve Bannon's dream come trueGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| One of Us |
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...927197fad9631f&ei=10 https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...cid=socialshare&t=27 Convicted Trump aide Bannon takes ‘deep state’ crusade to Supreme Court Conservative Supreme Court justices are posed to overturn a 40-year precedent that would strip power from government agencies. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | ||
|
One of Us |
The size, scope, and power of the bureaucracy IS the downfall of the USA. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well, one thing for sure, anything Bannon is for, I'm against. He and his kind are the downfall of the USA. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Overturning Chevron turns the Federal Courts and all the state courts that designed administrative law around the concept into real, super legislators. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Only "activist judges" would overturn a 40-year precedent, right? "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
| One of Us |
Regulations set by people who can’t be voted out is a bad thing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The US isn't alone in that regard. When the horse has been eliminated, human life may be extended an average of five or more years. James R. Doolitle I think they've been misunderstood. Timothy Tredwell | |||
|
| One of Us |
Much better for them to be set by Federal Judges who aren't elected and aren't subject-matter experts. I look forward to Kavanaugh's stylings on marine mammal protection and Coney-Barrett's thoughts on the storage standards for nuclear waste. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
One of Us |
If Democrats were in power 1776, we’d be still British That being said, sometimes changes can be good I’m glad someone takes on bureaucracy, because that seems to be otherwise downfall of nations throughout the history Nothing like standing over your own kill | |||
|
| One of Us |
You mean like SCOTUS?  What's worse? Maybe regulations needed but can't be passed or enforced by an institution that's dysfunctional, like congress, who can't even understand the dynamics, science, technology, complexity, etc. associated with need for regulation, written in detail by people with adequate knowledge, much less agree. And such political institution is obviously made up of people of political whim, at least half of which cave to the power of a lying demagogue. We are talking about chaos. It's my view that is what GOPers want. Since they can't govern by force, dysfunction will do just fine. Reap the rewards. This whole thing about the Deep State or administrative state being a boogie is something that's been fomenting in conservativism for many years. It's part of the worldview. Orgs like the federalist society, heritage foundation and other conservative think tanks have been scheming on this for a long time. It was part of the ploy to keep Obama from nominating Garland, and part of the pitch to elect Trump, so he could appoint three far right Justices. It's also in part Heritage Foundation's Project 25. There is something very wrong about this picture. It's difficult to figure out and explain. That's why I say that anything Bannon, or Flynn advocates is best to be opposed rigorously. There are several aspects of this which point towards malevolence, ill-intent, even perversion of the mind and country. Any time major change happens in the "system" that stems from conspiracy theory and a demagogue, and a worldview filled with such, then the so-deemed cause for the change, the change, and consequences, especially if the claim is to fix something or make things better, legitimacy is null. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ted_States#Criticism In particular see Criticism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ted_States#Criticism ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You do get to vote for regs. You get to vote for the Administration test can use discretion differently. Or Vote for Congress people who will pass statutes preventing or changing the reg. | |||
|
| One of Us |
One could view it another way, too. The taking on for the purpose of dismantling of bureaucracy or agencies or institutions or regulations thereof, with no successor plan, could be seen as evidence of a path or trajectory of intentional downfall. Dismantling for the sake of itself is suspect. Chaos is not a virtue of a sustainable society "throughout the history". It's sorta like the GOPer narratives about ObamaCare. They just want to destroy it. Second choice is make it dysfunctional. No other replacement plan necessary. The downfall of nations or societies is a long and complex topic which has been the study and writings of many qualified people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...d_loss_of_creativity I'll skip down to the part: Systems Science, to make it easier. But you could read the whole article, if you want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...apse#Systems_science ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
This case before SCOTUS is almost a perfect example of what I'm talking about. This case was brought by herring fishermen, business owners and captains, in NJ. More than the average person, I am familiar with these people and the business - in Alaska. https://www.alaskasnewssource....ermen-supreme-court/ This short article explains a lot: https://alaskapublic.org/2024/...ion-on-land-and-sea/ First, if the fishery and regs are like Alaska, this is a limited entry business. It's not open to just anyone. It's restricted by regulations for the protection of the environment and species and perhaps some indigenous rights There are seasons too - openings and closings, all tied to marine biology. The seasons are short and competitive. The harvest is large. The money is astounding in good years. The permits cost a lot and are transferable by inheritance or sale. The equipment also costs a lot. Its capitalism consolidated. Usually, these captains and crew fish other seasons and fish, and may use different boats for each specialized method. They certainly use different equipment for different species. The regulations are about methods, bi-catch, quantity, duration, etc. And the regulations provide for on-board monitors, and the real rub is that the fishermen pay, by regulation, for the monitors to watch them for the sake of following the rules. Now, we all know that pisses them off the most. To them it's like rubbing their face in it. It takes a special type of person to be a herring boat captain, or any commercial fishing boat in Alaska. These people are super-predators, both literally and character. They hate constraints, unless it's on someone else. There is no such thing as a predator like this who is also an environmentalist. If not for regulations controlling them, restraining them, these guys would run amuck. That's a proven fact. What they are fighting for is the opening to run amuck for the sake of money. That's all. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The Supreme Court is only supposed to address actual "cases and controversies", which there is not in this one. The Trump Administration imposed the costs of the monitors on the fishermen, the Biden Administration reversed the program and refunded every dollar paid. Case closed. Conservatives are trying to use a dead issue as the vehicle to force a radical change in how the Federal government works. Currently, when Congress passes a Law directing an Agency to do something the Agency does it in accordance with the best science available, and the "Chevron Doctrine" says that Courts will second-guess the Agency ONLY if the way they decide to carry out Congress' mandate is not "reasonable". This is what the fanatics call the "Deep State" and are trying to kill. If Chevron is overturned Courts will no longer decide disputes based on whether a Regulation was enacted on a "reasonable" basis but will have to render judgement on every detail of every regulation anybody doesn't like, which they are not equipped to do. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
| One of Us |
The SCOTUS writes zero regulations. They decide on whether they are within the limits of the Constitution of not. Congress let this get way out of hand. They should have exercised control long ago. The bureaucracy IS the reason it is so important to keep a Democrat out of executive control. But these agencies have now taken on a life themselves. I sincerely hope the SCOTUS does strip the agencies of their power and sends it back to congress…where it belongs. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
It won't send anything to Congress, Congress tells the agencies what to do and the agencies figure out how to do it. This makes every decision reviewable by a Court. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
| One of Us |
It's a myth, just like so much more driving conservative ideology. It's a made-up boogie, to pave the way to a fantasy. "Relentless" is the name of one of the boats in this case. That's a perfect metaphor. Also, as Jeffive says, conservative judges bitched about so-deemed "activist" judiciary. Now, there is no doubt that far right justices are activists regarding law. Wikipedia: Anne McGill married David Gorsuch after finishing law school. They divorced in 1982 while she was serving as EPA Administrator. The couple had two sons, J. J. and Neil, and a daughter, Stephanie. Neil Gorsuch became an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court in 2017. Also: Anne Irene McGill Gorsuch Burford, also known as Anne M. Gorsuch, was an American attorney and politician. Between 1981 and 1983, while known as Anne M. Gorsuch, she served under President Ronald Reagan as the first female Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency . https://www.washingtonpost.com...a-it-was-a-disaster/ Neil Gorsuch’s mother once ran the EPA. It didn’t go well. By Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney February 1, 2017 at 7:33 a.m. EST https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...e-court-nominee.html In Fall of Gorsuch’s Mother, a Painful Lesson in Politicking https://www.commondreams.org/v...is-supreme-court-has Why Neil Gorsuch's Mother Would Be So Proud of the Destruction His Supreme Court Has Wrought https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17...h-chevron/index.html Neil Gorsuch has a grudge against federal agencies. He holds their fate in his hands By Joan Biskupic, CNN Senior Supreme Court Analyst 8 minute read Updated 12:10 PM EST, Wed January 17, 2024 ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I am now directly paying and tipping a government game scout (who gets a lot less in salary per diem than they are charging me for their services)…. I kind of think that should be part of the camp fees, it always was when I was there in my early hunting. I kind of agree that if there is supposed to be a federal employee on the boat by law, it should be part of the license fee. I don’t know how it works- if they have to pay them like an employee complete to FICA, etc. I don’t have an issue with them demanding a witness given what is going on, although with modern electronic equipment actually having someone on board may be a bit superfluous. I was very startled at the detail and amount of information farmers have from the modern equipment on yields, etc. (and how much they have to give for their crop insurance policy)… Is some regulation needed for fishing? Yes. OTOH, per your previous post, ME, maybe they should be worried less about the legal fishermen, and more about these boats that they don’t have licensed that are illegally fishing. | |||
|
| One of Us |
https://slate.com/news-and-pol...-court-justices.html Federalist Court How the Federalist Society became the de facto selector of Republican Supreme Court justices. BY LAWRENCE BAUM AND NEAL DEVINS JAN 31, 201710:12 AM During last year’s campaign, Donald Trump offered an unprecedented guarantee regarding any potential Supreme Court nomination. The Republican nominee promised that, if he were elected president, his judicial nominees would “all [be] picked by the Federalist Society.” Trump likewise acknowledged he had turned to the “Federalist people” and the Heritage Foundation to assemble a list of 21 potential Supreme Court nominees. Shortly after becoming president-elect, he met with the society’s executive vice president, Leonard Leo, to discuss the evaluation process for selecting a nominee to fill the seat that belonged to Antonin Scalia. On Tuesday, President Trump is expected to announce in a prime-time televised event which judge on the Federalist Society’s list is his Supreme Court pick. Whoever Trump chooses will not simply be vetted by the Federalist Society; that nominee will be a Federalist Society loyalist—as he explicitly said, a Federalist “pick.” Nine of the 21 names on the short list that was released in September and formed the pool of potential selections spoke at the 2016 Federalist Society annual convention a week after the election—prompting USA Today to call the convention an “audition” for “Supreme Court wannabes.” Whether or not they are members, nearly all the 21 are listed as “experts” on the society’s website. Three appeals court judges who are considered top contenders—Thomas Hardiman, William Pryor, and Neil Gorsuch—are Federalist Society members who regularly speak at society events. Pryor, for example, has spoken at every annual convention since 2006. In one sense, the key role played by one organization of lawyers in the selection of a Supreme Court justice is remarkable. Typically, the president works with White House and Department of Justice staff in identifying and assessing potential judicial nominees. Interest groups and others weigh in and may have considerable influence, but no single group is dominant. In another sense, the role of the Federalist Society is the natural culmination of a decadeslong evolution of judicial selection by Republican presidents, one that has made ideological credentials more central to the nomination process. That evolution began with the Ronald Reagan presidency. The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 in order to advance conservative ideas in the legal academy and ultimately in the legal system as a whole. From 1985 to 1988, Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese—an early supporter of the society—helped groom and credential young conservative lawyers by giving key positions in the Justice Department to early leaders of the society. Following a similar path, the George H.W. Bush administration gave responsibility for judicial selection in the White House Counsel’s office to Lee Liberman Otis, a founder of the society. Federalist Society members also received several nominations to appellate judgeships in the Reagan and Bush administrations. Reagan nominated two of the society’s original faculty advisers—Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia—to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Supreme Court. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to both courts. For conservatives, however, the Reagan and Bush years were a mixed success. The Federalist Society was nascent, and there was not a deep bench of committed, credentialed Federalist-associated conservatives. In addition to Scalia, Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor and, after Bork was defeated, Anthony Kennedy (who had earlier been rejected as too liberal). Along with Thomas, Bush appointed David Souter. O’Connor was appointed before the Federalist Society was founded, and Kennedy and Souter lacked Federalist Society credentials; all three disappointed conservatives. Indeed, Trump Supreme Court contender Pryor ended a 2000 speech with the admonition, “Please, God, no more Souters.” By the time George W. Bush became president in 2001, though, the Federalist Society had grown in size and prominence. For the first time, the conservative legal movement dominated Department of Justice and judicial appointments. Federalist Society members Brett Kavanaugh and Viet Dinh held key positions involving judicial selection in the new administration. Meanwhile, an increasing number of society members had developed credentials that made them credible candidates for federal appellate judgeships. About half of Bush’s appointments to the courts of appeals went to society members, including Trump front-runners Hardiman, Pryor, and Gorsuch. Bush also appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both with significant ties to the society, to the Supreme Court. The nomination and withdrawal of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers in 2005 further illustrated the power of the Federalist Society in the appointment process. The Miers nomination received public support from Leonard Leo, then as now a leader of the society. But others in the society attacked Miers on multiple grounds, including her lack of ties to the Federalist Society. Writing in the Legal Times, for example, Todd Zywicki demanded that Miers withdraw and be replaced by a nominee from the “deep farm team of superbly qualified and talented circuit court judges primed for this moment.” Those attacks helped lead to Miers’ withdrawal from consideration three weeks after Bush announced her nomination. The new nominee was Alito, not only a Federalist Society member but also a favorite of the conservatives who had criticized the Miers nomination. Alito is a regular speaker at the Federalist Society annual convention and delivered a eulogy for Scalia at the 2016 convention. As discussed above, during the presidential campaign it was already clear that the society would play a central role in the coming nomination battle to replace Scalia. But during the campaign, conservatives who were most concerned about a vacancy on an ideologically divided court could not be nearly as confident about prospective Trump nominees as they could about the kinds of people that candidates such as Ted Cruz—a Federalist Society stalwart himself—would select. Trump’s response was to embrace Scalia and the society as much as any other candidate by handing over the reins of judicial selection to the society. Calling Scalia a “great judge” and promising to appoint someone in his “mold,” Trump allied himself with the very group that Scalia helped found as a law professor and championed as a justice. As we note in a forthcoming study on partisanship and Supreme Court decision-making, the Federalist Society has been especially effective because it allows close scrutiny of prospective judicial nominees over a long period of time. If Hillary Clinton had been elected president, she would have received strong pressure from some quarters to nominate a strong liberal to the court. Democrats, however, have traditionally downplayed ideology in favor of other goals as Obama did with the Garland pick. Certainly there would have been no single progressive group that came even close to dominating the nomination process, nor would association with any such group be regarded as a litmus test. The role of the Federalist Society in the selection of justices serves as a mechanism to enhance the chances that Republican appointees will be strongly conservative. Ever since the 1991 nomination of Thomas to the Supreme Court, Republican nominees have been conservative and connected to the Federalist Society. Despite some conservatives’ unhappiness with certain positions that Roberts has taken on the court, he has proved to be clearly on the conservative side of the ideological spectrum. Thus, after an era in which conservatives came to rue what they saw as missed opportunities with Supreme Court appointments, Republican presidents are now more likely than their Democratic counterparts to maximize their impact on the court’s ideological direction. Correspondingly, Trump’s Supreme Court pick will reinforce the partisan divide that separates conservative Republicans from moderate to liberal Democrats on today’s court. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...Trump_administration The Federalist Society/Donald Trump Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...urrent_officeholders Current Office holders https://www.theguardian.com/us...onservative-abortion This article is more than 1 year old Leonard Leo: the secretive rightwinger using billions to reshape America This article is more than 1 year old Marble Freedom Trust, advocacy group headed by Leo, has received vast $1.6bn donation to push conservative causes https://slate.com/news-and-pol...ol-insurrection.html A Federalist Society Star Helped Foment the Capitol Riot The Federalist Society has no comment. BY MARK JOSEPH STERN JAN 13, 20215:53 PM https://www.nytimes.com/2024/0...n-kevin-roberts.html Inside the Heritage Foundation’s Plans for ‘Institutionalizing Trumpism’ “People will lose their jobs,” the think tank’s president says about federal workers. “Hopefully their lives are able to flourish in spite of that.” https://michiganadvance.com/20...authoritarian-state/ Project 2025, if allowed, will cement America as a rightwing authoritarian state Barrington Salmon JANUARY 16, 2024 7:51 AM https://newrepublic.com/articl...ute-think-tank-trump The Claremont Institute: The Anti-Democracy Think Tank It was once (mostly) traditionally conservative and (sort of) intellectually rigorous. Now it platforms white nationalists and promotes authoritarianism. And so much more: https://www.google.com/search?...nt=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1 ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
So, how is that "worry" transformed into action? By Congress, SCOTUS? After all, fishing regs and rules are administered by detail written by the Deep State??  ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Talk about your deep state. Again, if you want a return to 19th century Federalism. Fine, you must give up the Federal Protection of every Incorporated Right. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The courts wo granting direction will now have no guiding principle or expertise when asked whether a reg is enforceable. Statutes are written, at best, a statute sets a goals. The statutes state the Secretary the Commissioner shall promulgate regulations necessary. The entire procedure for litigation of certain claims is set out by regulations. Who should define what a fully automatic weapon is? You, Dr. Easter? The agency with the expertise that the courts can rebounder a standard of reasonableness? Especially, when Congress passes a law allowing that or making definition necessary through regulation. Agencies just don’t write regs. They do so under and by an Enabling Statute. If you do not like it, the answer is amend the Enabling Statute assuming the reg is reasonable. Assuming a reasonable reg and not enough votes to do modify the Enabling Statute, the process worked and is legitimate act of government. If this is why you say all Dems hate America, I suggest you go read up on President Theadore Roosevelt. | |||
|
| One of Us |
What I've posted in support of my premise is that what conservatives have been and are doing is "DEEP" activism, at all levels, super-well funded by elites, well planned and fomented. It's transformative by intent and design. Is this a grass-root ground swell, or top down swell? Trump's job, well done BTW, is to make cover for the top-down elites by convincing the lawn grass masses it's good for them, and they are in charge, that he's working for them. Think of it!!! ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
What a statute gives an agency which is controlled by an Administration subject to future acts of Congress is discretion. The courts have long recognized the need for this discretion. If we do not like how an agency applies that discretion, which as part of Chevron has to take us into account through comment and notice to obtain discretion, the answer is to vote for a new Administration. The new Administration may apply that discretion differently. Better yet, vote for enough Congress people to remove that aspect of discretion created by the Enabling Statute. Go campaign on it and win an election, if you can. | |||
|
| One of Us |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Tell that to someone who doesn’t deal with them professionally and read the news. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The Agencies, like the Executive Branch as a whole, execute the Laws passed by Congress. No Agency can make up a Regulation out of thin air, there has to be a Congressional mandate, a Law or Statute, authorizing the action. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
| One of Us |
Red State and Freerepublic are not "the news". You just exposed how very little you actually understand about how our government works with your idiotic "The Executive Branch" comment. No part of the Executive Branch can take any action not authorized by either the Constitution or a Law enacted by Congress. Period. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
| One of Us |
True to some extent but the agency action itself is mandated by the administration and currently the administration is allowed wide discretion. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
READ MY LIPS THERE IS NO EXTENT. Agencies can act ONLY under authority granted by Congress. The Chevron precedent says that as long as they do so in a "reasonable" fashion Courts will defer to the judgement of the Agencies with the subject-matter expertise. If that precedent is overturned Courts will have to adjudicate every dispute, not merely the "unreasonable" ones. 17,000 cases have been decided under Chevron, those cases didn't tie up a Court for months trying to educate a Judge to a level allowing them to understand all the science involved. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
| One of Us |
Agencies can only act within the Enabling Statute passed by Congress. You, not Jefffive, are wrong. That is what Chevron is all about whether the agency is exercising discretion granted by the Enabling Statute in a reasonable manner. Not everything an agency does is entitled to Chevron Difference. Go read Chevron and just as important Skidmore. The Courts have already took a half step back w the Major Questions Doctrine. For that, go read FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. Otherwise, you do not even have an opinion without reading those cases. What you have is simple ignorance. Guess who got Chevron through? Justice Scalia would be the Justice. The only area an agency may act wo an Enabling Statute is when an agency can be said to be acting within the authority or power vested in the Executive Branch by the Constitution as a separate and delegated power. | |||
|
| One of Us |
It would appear that in his quest to be more like his idol Lane went and got syphilis and it's not doing his brain any favors. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
| One of Us |
You are correct in that they regulate within the enabling statute. However, who interprets what the enabling statute says and means? Often it’s the department that is enforcing it. It’s not only the bureaucracy’s fault. Congress writing vague and open ended legislation is equally to blame. The executive is in charge of running the agency… which then interprets what the law says… which then decides whether or not they are going to enforce it… and on whom. In the fishing case, my main objection is that the fisherman has to pay a federal employee to be on the boat, not that they have to follow rules or that they have to be monitored. Least government reasonable is not no government. Conservatives are not anarchists. | |||
|
| One of Us |
That fee was imposed by the Trump Administration, the Biden Administration rescinded it and refunded all fees paid. The case is moot, but the anarchist Conservative Justices want to keep it alive as a vehicle to gut effective regulations. "If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump | |||
|
| One of Us |
At the first level it is the Administration/Agency. See my prior post on voting. Ultimately, the courts through Chevron and Skidmore decide in the agency has applied the Enabling Statute reasonably. Government is best that Governs when it needs to. More government or less government depends on the situation hence discretion. If you do not like it change the Administration or the Enabling Statute assuming the reg is not unreasonable. | |||
|
| One of Us |
This is wisdom, not ideology.
============================================ Governance is a social construct, by necessity as a survival strategy. Humans are social by nature. ************* Real conservatives aren't radicalized. Thus "radicalized conservative" is an oxymoron. Yet there are many radicalized republicans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks" D.J. Trump aka Trumpism's Founding Farter, aka Farter Martyr. Qualifications: flatulence - mental, oral and anal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I originally wrote must instead of need. I changed it to be softer. I think must is more restrictive, but the word must would be read more extensive of power. | |||
|
Moderator |
That's Statism - the actual quote (sometimes attributed to Thoreau), is
Frankly, I'd like every law to have a 5 to 10 year automatic sunset clause, where it has to be re-upped if it still fits the modern need opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
I know the quote. I have mine. If I had a magic wand, I would require every reg must be voted on in the Senate within 30 days of publication on the Register. The vote would be simple majority. The Filibuster would not apply. Failure to vote w/in 30 days would result in the reg passing. The above would take a statute, an Act of Congress. I do not have the votes I do not care if it meant the Senate would have to work a few all nighters. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading The Political Forum The Supreme Court looks set to make Steve Bannon's dream come true
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
Since January 8 1998 you are visitor #: