Bizarre Supreme Court decision that the House voted against

[nomadic5]

House strikes blow against federal regulations, votes to overturn controversial Supreme Court ruling

The House of Representatives voted Thursday to overturn a Supreme Court ruling from 1984 that Republicans say gives the executive branch too much authority to set federal regulations.

www.foxnews.com

This is unbelievable.. that SCOTUS would make a ruling like this..

site

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. case effectively told courts that they should defer to federal agencies when they interpret laws passed by Congress as they write regulations.

comments

Federal agencies???

You mean like the one Lois Lerner was in control of? (so glad she was held accountable )

You mean the one that refuses to cooperate with Congress about bribery charges against the "president"????

Most of the time, it seems SCOTUS gets things right... (?)

not in Roe

and not here...

 

[1srelluc]

Currently a federal agency can make a new rule (say like the EPA's wetlands rules) that has the force of law but without the consent of Congress.

Congress never addressed changing the law to reflect the new rule so in effect the EPA is making-up new law without the consent of congress.

Chevron turned that on it's ear and allowed it so now it looks like SCOTUS is gonna put law-making back in congress's court where it should be and any rules made since the laws were passed will be subject to judicial review.

If SCOTUS kills Chevron then most all of the agency add-on rules will be held to be unconstitutional.

 

[nomadic5]

Currently a federal agency can make a new rule (say like the EPA's wetlands rules) that has the force of law but without the consent of Congress.

Congress never addressed changing the law to reflect the new rule so in effect the EPA is making-up new law without the consent of congress.

Chevron turned that on it's ear and allowed it so now it looks like SCOTUS is gonna put law-making back in congress's court where it should be and any rules made since the laws were passed will be subject to judicial review.

If SCOTUS kills Chevron then most all of the agency add-on rules will be held to be unconstitutional.

what are add on rules?

rules added by rogue deep staters?

 

[1srelluc]

what are add on rules?

rules added by rogue deep staters?

Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit before continuing.

 

[nomadic5]

Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit before continuing.

I'm educated enough... too bad you have to insult

 

[martybegan]

Currently a federal agency can make a new rule (say like the EPA's wetlands rules) that has the force of law but without the consent of Congress.

Congress never addressed changing the law to reflect the new rule so in effect the EPA is making-up new law without the consent of congress.

Chevron turned that on it's ear and allowed it so now it looks like SCOTUS is gonna put law-making back in congress's court where it should be and any rules made since the laws were passed will be subject to judicial review.

If SCOTUS kills Chevron then most all of the agency add-on rules will be held to be unconstitutional.

And if congress wants to implement things that now happen via unelected bureaucratic inertia, they will have to pass laws giving the executive clear direction to do what they want done.

I don't see how this is bad to anyone who isn't an authoritarian.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

And the Senate road blocks it in 3,2,1.....

They do so care about their "Democracy" (tm)

 

[martybegan]

And the Senate road blocks it in 3,2,1.....

They do so care about their "Democracy" (tm)

That's the point of the Senate, to force laws to be agreeable to the majority of THE STATES after the people have had their say via the House.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

That's the point of the Senate, to force laws to be agreeable to the majority of THE STATES after the people have had their say via the House.

Yes, I understand this.

The very same Senate that now wants to pack the Supreme Court with Leftist yes men.

Ironic, huh?

 

[martybegan]

Yes, I understand this.

The very same Senate that now wants to pack the Supreme Court with Leftist yes men.

Ironic, huh?

Aren't they the ones stopping it from happening if the Dems get the house back?

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Aren't they the ones stopping it from happening if the Dems get the house back?

Not if they get enough Dem votes in the Senate. The two will coordinate like the borg they all belong to.

And Puerto Rico and DC will get their own Senators.

I could go on...but I'm sure you get the gist.

 

[g5000]

House strikes blow against federal regulations, votes to overturn controversial Supreme Court ruling

The House of Representatives voted Thursday to overturn a Supreme Court ruling from 1984 that Republicans say gives the executive branch too much authority to set federal regulations.

www.foxnews.com

This is unbelievable.. that SCOTUS would make a ruling like this..

site

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. case effectively told courts that they should defer to federal agencies when they interpret laws passed by Congress as they write regulations.

comments

Federal agencies???

You mean like the one Lois Lerner was in control of? (so glad she was held accountable )

You mean the one that refuses to cooperate with Congress about bribery charges against the "president"????

Most of the time, it seems SCOTUS gets things right... (?)

not in Roe

and not here...

You really have no clue how government works, do you.

 

[martybegan]

Not if they get enough Dem votes in the Senate. The two will coordinate like the borg they all belong to.

And Puerto Rico and DC will get their own Senators.

I could go on...but I'm sure you get the gist.

Well then we are fucked, but until then the Senate is the brake.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Well then we are fucked, but until then the Senate is the brake.

The Dems control the Senate, they just don't have the votes. If it was up to Chuck Schumer the death of the Republic would already be happening.

Because "DEMOCRACY!".

 

[RhodyPatriot]

You really have no clue how government works, do you.

Give him a course on graft and corruption.

You can start with the mega-billions we've sent to that obscure country your avatar boasts like the mindless peon you are.

 

[g5000]

When Congress establishes a new law, they build a framework. Say they want cleaner air and water, they create a federal agency intended to help get our air and water cleaned up.

We used to have rivers that would actually catch fire. The EPA was created under the Nixon administration and environmental protection used to have strong bipartisan support.

Congress built the bones of the agency, and left the muscle to the federal branch since the federal branch is the enforcement branch of our government. The federal agency they created then wrote the regulations which industry, or whoever, will have to follow.

That is EXACTLY how our government is supposed to work, and how it has always worked.

Faux News says regulations cost $2 trillion. I have serious doubts about that claim. Nevertheless, they make it sound like every dollar of regulatory costs are a bad thing. As if the cost of not fucking poisoning our drinking water is wasted money.

Faux News doesn't want the tard herd to think too much.

Does the federal branch overreach? Yes. Yes it does.

In fact, some special interests bribe our government officials to make very strict regulatory hurdles in order to prevent competition breaking into the market.

I believe I once provided on this forum evidence the coal industry does this.

Anyway, the issue is far from black and white.

If a federal agency overreaches, that is Congress's fault for not writing the law correctly, which is why the courts frequently kick these regulatory territorial pissing contests back into their idiot faces.

 

[g5000]

You can be sure there is a special interest behind this. Someone who doesn't want to have to keep the public safe from their toxic practices.

 

[Moonglow]

Administrative law was created to increase response times to the slow legislative progress the Republic had in dealing with empire needs.

 

[Moonglow]

You can be sure there is a special interest behind this. Someone who doesn't want to have to keep the public safe from their toxic practices.

We know that capitalist enjoy their misery.

 

[g5000]

Regulations At Work

A rule requiring the cotton industry to reduce dust in textile factories lowered the
prevalence of brown lung among industry employees by 97 percent;

A rule requiring employers to place locks and warning labels on powered equipment
is credited with preventing 50,000 injuries and 120 fatalities per year;

A rule on excavations at construction sites has reduced the fatality rate from cave-ins
by 40 percent;

A grain-handling facilities standard has reduced the number of fatalities caused by
dust-related explosions by 95 percent;

And a 1969 mine safety law led to a rapid 50 percent decrease in the coal mine
fatality rate.


[snip]

After a series of catastrophic grain explosions in the late 1970s left 59 workers dead in just
one month, the hazards of grain facilities drew the attention of federal regulators. OSHA
began developing its Grain Handling Facilities Standard, which it finalized in 1987. The
regulation limited the amount of dust allowed on surfaces within grain facilities and
required testing of silos for combustible gases. It also prohibited employees from entering
storage bins without a proper harness and a spotter present.

Industry groups and the Reagan administrations Office of Management and Budget voiced
opposition to the Grain Handling Facilities Standard during the rulemaking process. A
spokesman for the National Grain and Feed Association derided the proposed limits to
grain dust levels, saying, Research shows no one level of dust is more hazardous than
another.28 One official from the Office of Management and Budget referred to OSHAs
assessment of grain facility hazards as substantially overstated.29

In the end, the OSHA standard made grain handling facilities much safer places to work.
The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), which initially opposed the standard,
now finds it to be remarkably effective at improving workplace safety, citing a 95 percent
drop in explosion-related fatalities for certain facilities.30 In comments submitted to OSHA
in 1998, NGFA stated that in the years following the standard, there has been an
unprecedented decline in explosions, injuries and fatalities at grain handling facilities.31
OSHAs analysis shows that the standard prevented an average of five suffocation deaths
per year.32 Data presented by industry showed that the standard annually prevents eight
injuries and four deaths resulting from explosions in grain elevators.



So not only do regulations save lives, the very industries which are regulated initially OPPOSED making any changes to the way they did business, and now they SUPPORT the regulations.


Coal mines are among the most dangerous workplaces in the United States. Workers, facing
the ever-present risks of mine explosion and collapse, must perform their jobs in confined
spaces near heavy machinery. Since 1900, over 100,000 miners have been killed on the
job.34 Mining has become dramatically safer, however. The first major decrease in fatality
rates began in the late 1940s, as mines began relying less on explosives and more on
machinery.35 But after the early 1950s, progress on mine safety stagnated; the fatality rate
remained largely unchanged between 1950 and 1969.36 It was not until the 1969 passage
of the Federal Mine Health and Safety Act that government regulatory efforts spurred
another major decrease in coal mining fatality rates, and the results were dramatic.

Regulation of the mining industry increased gradually throughout the 20th century. The
federal government first addressed mine safety in 1910 when Congress created the U.S.
Bureau of Mines (USBM). USBM was primarily engaged in conducting research and
investigating catastrophic mine accidents. The agency had no regulatory authority
throughout most of its existence. Even after Congress granted it authority to inspect certain
mines in 1952, USBM lacked the power to compel mining operations to make needed
changes. In 1969, Congress passed the Federal Mine Health and Safety Act, the first
comprehensive mine safety law creating mandatory inspection requirements, enforceable
health and safety standards, and civil and criminal penalties for willful violations. The law
laid the framework for even stronger protections under the Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, which established the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).

In 1969, the year that the Federal Mine Health and Safety Act passed, 152 fatalities
occurred for every 100,000 underground coal miners. After the acts passage, these fatality
rates dropped off steeply, decreasing by 50 percent in just four years.