https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...8fc87af46a05a0&ei=70

The Supreme Court cases asking the justices to put themselves in charge of everything, explained

Story by Ian Millhiser • 6h

On January 17, the Supreme Court will hear a pair of cases — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce — which ask the justices to seize control of much of federal policymaking. Both cases involve the kind of hyper-technical questions of federal administrative law that ordinarily put nonlawyers (and, indeed, many lawyers) to sleep.

And yet, Loper Bright and Relentless are potentially the most consequential cases the Supreme Court will hear in its current term — including the dispute over whether Donald Trump may remain on the 2024 presidential ballot. The plaintiffs’ argument in these cases is that extraordinarily granular policy decisions, which have historically been made by federal agencies with a considerable amount of expertise on such policy matters, should instead be resolved by a judiciary that lacks any such expertise.
Think of questions like how much nitrogen may be discharged by a wastewater treatment plant in Taunton, Massachusetts, or whether there is “effective competition” between cable TV providers and streaming video providers in Kauai, Hawaii. These are the sorts of wonky, highly specialized questions that lawyers typically do not know how to answer. And lawyers do not become any better at answering these questions if they happen to wear a black robe.

This is the far right’s attempt to relitigate and kill of Chevron Deference which mandates. a court give difference to an agency decision.

There is a 3 part, factor test for when a Court is to apply that difference.

The effect is building a case/brief that matches facts from previous cases upheld (if you to the Government) to your fact pattern, or if you rep the private entity facts from cases where the agency lost to your fact pattern.

Not everything an agency does gets Chevron difference.

There was a case after Chevron, called Skidmore that upheld Chevron, sharpening its focus.

I have no use nor respect for this judicial activism attempted by the far right.

I think it's part of a much bigger picture. The conservative agenda outlined by the Heritage Foundation, Project 25. This is just a small window of the playbook that has been fomenting in MAGA world for a long time, The conservative justices are all on-board. It's about the evisceration of the boogie deep/administrative state and the 50,000 shock troops Steve Bannon dreams about.

https://globalextremism.org/pr...RNt0K-EaAshbEALw_wcB

The Far-Right Playbook for American Authoritarianism

https://www.kosu.org/politics/...ative-wins-president

Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 aims to reduce, reshape government if conservative wins president
NPR
Published September 13, 2023 at 7:20 AM CDT

https://thehill.com/opinion/co...ing-government-work/

What the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 Transition Report gets wrong about making government work
BY DONALD F. KETTL, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 05/10/23 2:30 PM ET

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/...tionalism-rcna103510

A coalition of far-right groups, led by the Heritage Foundation, is planning for the next Republican administration. Project 2025 has received considerable media attention for its $22 million budget, for its plans to expand presidential power over federal agencies, and for specific policies, like rolling back environmental protections.

However, the plan’s theocratic elements have gone unscrutinized.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...ject-2025-rcna125638

Donations have surged to groups linked to conservative Project 2025
The advisory board for Project 2025 includes representatives from conservative groups led by veterans of the Trump administration.

https://apnews.com/article/ele...f1c6710eb03fd5b58981

Conservative groups draw up plan to dismantle the US government and replace it with Trump’s vision