Bizarre Supreme Court decision that the House voted against

[Skylar]

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...

Congress can change the law that the agencies are bound to, yes?

 

[g5000]

So when someone whines about how much regulations cost, think about how much they save in lives and treasure.

 

[1srelluc]

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.

It's easy to get hung-up on the EPA stuff but they are not the only agency making law buy issuing "rules" that have the force of law but were never stipulated in a law or Act.

The ATF just recently made a new rule (pistol arm brace rule) that as of 6/1/23 created millions of "felons" in the ATF's eyes.

Congress never amended the law to take into account the new rule the ATF created out of thin air.

As a consequence millions of brace owners basically told the ATF to FOAD and did not comply.

 

[1srelluc]

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

Meh, don't come in here all ignorant of the subject of which you started a thread on then.

 

[g5000]

It's easy to get hung-up on the EPA stuff but they are not the only agency making law buy issuing "rules" that have the force of law but were never stipulated in a law or Act.

The ATF just recently made a new rule (pistol arm brace rule) that as of 6/1/23 created millions of "felons" in the ATF's eyes.

Congress never amended the law to take into account the new rule the ATF created out of thin air.

As a consequence millions of brace owners basically told the ATF to FOAD and did not comply.

The rule outlines the factors ATF would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported “stabilizing brace” (or other rearward attachment) to determine whether these weapons would be considered a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, or a “rifle” or “firearm” subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act.

Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The final rule was published in the...

www.atf.gov

As I said above, this regulation can be challenged in court, and if the Supremes decide the ATF had the authority to create this regulation under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act, then the court would uphold the regulation and direct Congress to plug that hole if they don't like it.

Or the Supremes could decide the ATF did not have the authority and render it unconstitutional.

This is how our government works.

 

[1srelluc]

The rule outlines the factors ATF would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported “stabilizing brace” (or other rearward attachment) to determine whether these weapons would be considered a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, or a “rifle” or “firearm” subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act.

Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The final rule was published in the...

www.atf.gov

As I said above, this regulation can be challenged in court, and if the Supremes decide the ATF had the authority to create this regulation under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act, then the court would uphold the regulation and direct Congress to plug that hole if they don't like it.

Or the Supremes could decide the ATF did not have the authority and render it unconstitutional.

This is how our government works.

It's already been partly enjoined....Enough I figure to be a shot across the ATF's bow as to what's coming so they don't get ants in their pants as far as trying to enforce it.

 

[Pete7469]

Anything that reduces federal power is progress, but the House passing laws that are doomed to die at the next step seems like a waste of time. If they impeach the potato and that fascist pig garland I'll be happy.

 

[OKTexas]

The rule outlines the factors ATF would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported “stabilizing brace” (or other rearward attachment) to determine whether these weapons would be considered a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, or a “rifle” or “firearm” subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act.

Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The final rule was published in the...

www.atf.gov

As I said above, this regulation can be challenged in court, and if the Supremes decide the ATF had the authority to create this regulation under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act, then the court would uphold the regulation and direct Congress to plug that hole if they don't like it.

Or the Supremes could decide the ATF did not have the authority and render it unconstitutional.

This is how our government works.

If an accessory doesn't alter the basic functionality of a legal firearm the ATF has no authority to regulate them. What's next, banning laser sighting devices, because they allow the operator to fire more accurately?

.

 

[g5000]

If an accessory doesn't alter the basic functionality of a legal firearm the ATF has no authority to regulate them. What's next, banning laser sighting devices, because they allow the operator to fire more accurately?

.

A stabilizing brace does alter the functionality.

Just like a bump stock.

 

[nomadic5]

Anything that reduces federal power is progress, but the House passing laws that are doomed to die at the next step seems like a waste of time. If they impeach the potato and that fascist pig garland I'll be happy.

McCarthy is talking about doing that



I don't see how they don't do it