The Chevron and Snyder decisions.

[JLW]

Plus the legislative branch can make sure their will is implemented by being as specific and detailed as possible in the laws they write.

That is a joke. No one can possibly think of every possibility when Congress make a law. Of course, cons may wish to have every piece of legislation run 100,000 pages.

 

[Crepitus]

The Federal Register is over 90,000 fucking pages!!!!! You can't run an organization like that

and that has what to do with my post?

nothing, that's what.

 

[Crepitus]

Local control and regulations... we don't need a bunch of over paid federal bureaucrats in DC ordering us around... why is the left so freaked out about this?...
Maybe because they can see this is the beginning of the end for over zealous federal government agencies.... And just who in the EPA has Norfolk Southern paid off?.... hmmmmm?

Do you know why there was federal oversight of things like this to start with?

 

[Rambunctious]

Do you know why there was federal oversight of things like this to start with?

Yes because our federal government is too big and holds way too much power over the people....

 

[Rambunctious]

All higher courts state and federal have been picking at the edges of the Chevron decision for years... the supreme court finally nailed the coffin shut... its a great day indeed....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I just posted this in another thread on a similar topic:

The Chevron decision is just another fucked up decision from this radical and out of control Supreme Court. It will now be judges who determine what words and phrases mean in the administrative code. So it takes it out the hands of elected and appointed officials and puts it in their hands. What the fuck do judges know about chemical compounds and other complicated sciences that these agencies regulate? You think the Courts are clogged now, just wait. This SCOTUS makes a mockery of what precedent means.

It will now be judges who determine what words and phrases mean in the administrative code. So it takes it out the hands of elected and appointed officials and puts it in their hands.

It takes it out of the hands of faceless bureaucrats.
If Congress and the President don't like what the courts decide,
they can write a clearer law and pass it.

 

[JLW]

It will now be judges who determine what words and phrases mean in the administrative code. So it takes it out the hands of elected and appointed officials and puts it in their hands.

It takes it out of the hands of faceless bureaucrats.
If Congress and the President don't like what the courts decide,
they can write a clearer law and pass it.

Your post shows why the Chevron decision is a disaster. So, now it resides in the hands of Congress and the President to monitor each and every court decision and then make a law to agree or not agree with it. No piece of legislation can possibly contain every possible scenario.

As far as faceless bureaucrats go, they are at least qualified to make decisions as opposed to judges who have majors in the humanities and have absolutely no science background.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Chevron: The courts will now interpret ambiguous law rather than the agency that administers it.

Doesn't seem so bad on the face of it, right? Especially if you're got evidence on your side.

But the along comes:

Snyder: Gratuities to state and local officials are OK.

And it's time to forget about honesty, because we just made bribery legal as long as you don't pay until after the fact.

Let's say I want to be able to generate lots of pollution because the cleaner way to manufacture my goods is more expensive. A few words on the right ears, as long as no money or favors change hands until after the fact, and I'm golden. I can pay the judges after I'm make my increased profits from polluting the earth.

I agree that unelected bureaucrats who aren't held accountable to the public should not be making regulations and laws that affect the public, however, I don't agree that the courts should be the ones deciding ambiguous law. Congress needs to do their jobs and they can bring in experts to help them craft legislation setting these standards, just like they do with plenty of other laws they pass.

 

[Crepitus]

I agree that unelected bureaucrats who aren't held accountable to the public should not be making regulations and laws that affect the public, however, I don't agree that the courts should be the ones deciding ambiguous law. Congress needs to do their jobs and they can bring in experts to help them craft legislation setting these standards, just like they do with plenty of other laws they pass.

The way US law is written every single one has some "ambiguity" in it.

That's why the founders included the supreme court.

 

[martybegan]

I am talking about allowing kickbacks

Then legislate to outlaw kickbacks, specifically.

 

[martybegan]

Judges don’t bring in experts. Parties bring in experts. Of course why do you want to flood the courts with lawsuits and decisions being made by judges who have no science background? Lawsuits that take years to decide and while the lawsuit makes it way up the court chain, the polluter continues to pollute.

Why do you want all power in a given situation given to some schmuck in the executive branch?

That's what injunctions are for.

 

[martybegan]

That is a joke. No one can possibly think of every possibility when Congress make a law. Of course, cons may wish to have every piece of legislation run 100,000 pages.

No joke. Legislate what you want to legislate, but be specific about what you want.

Or maybe limit each bill to a specific thing you want, instead of massive monstrosities with hidden bullshit tucked away in it.

 

[JLW]

I agree that unelected bureaucrats who aren't held accountable to the public should not be making regulations and laws that affect the public, however, I don't agree that the courts should be the ones deciding ambiguous law. Congress needs to do their jobs and they can bring in experts to help them craft legislation setting these standards, just like they do with plenty of other laws they pass.

Congress does bring in experts and takes testimony before enacting a law. The funny thing about the Chevron case is that it was initially hailed by conservatives. Be that as it may, conservatives love to scream out that judges should not legislate, but they cheer a decision that effectively gives judges policy making authority.

 

[John09]

Mike Luckovich for June 28, 2024 - GoComics

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your post shows why the Chevron decision is a disaster. So, now it resides in the hands of Congress and the President to monitor each and every court decision and then make a law to agree or not agree with it. No piece of legislation can possibly contain every possible scenario.

As far as faceless bureaucrats go, they are at least qualified to make decisions as opposed to judges who have majors in the humanities and have absolutely no science background.

Your post shows why the Chevron decision is a disaster. So, now it resides in the hands of Congress and the President to monitor each and every court decision and then make a law to agree or not agree with it.

Exactly, no more guesswork on unclear laws by faceless bureaucrats.
If Congress didn't make their intent clear, the agency doesn't get to decide what it meant.

No piece of legislation can possibly contain every possible scenario.

No piece of legislation should give bureaucrats unlimited discretion.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Laws and regulations should be passed by elected officials.
The Democrats want an autocracy.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Judges don’t bring in experts. Parties bring in experts. Of course why do you want to flood the courts with lawsuits and decisions being made by judges who have no science background? Lawsuits that take years to decide and while the lawsuit makes it way up the court chain, the polluter continues to pollute.

This is easily solved by Congress writing clear laws instead of pushing that responsibility onto bureaucrats.

 

[SavannahMann]

Those issues belong in the judicial branch... we are not a dictatorship....

It is said the worst nation in the world to have a court decision in is Italy. They regularly find fantasy is the determined truth based upon idealism instead of facts.

Here is an example. The people want to believe the airliner was shot down by a missile. When the evidence of this theory is not produced, by the Government, they are charged with crimes for hiding the evidence. The evidence really shows it was a bomb in the toilet. But that evidence is ignored.

Itavia Flight 870 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Government experts and independent investigative experts say bomb in the toilet. Because that is what the evidence points to. The courts rule that it was a missile.

Now, I don’t know about you. But I don’t want the courts deciding what the appropriate building standards are for a structure. I don’t want the courts deciding over the objection of experts, that a chemical is safe regardless of the evidence to be used in food. I don’t want the Courts deciding on a whim that the Corps of Engineers doesn’t know what it is talking about.

I want the Coast Guard to be the deciding authority for boating safety. I want the NTSB to be the final say in determining what caused an accident. I want the FDA determining what food and drugs are safe. I want the EPA making calls on pollution. I don’t want the big companies with armies of lawyers paying bribes to do whatever they want and the court goes along.

I want experts making the decisions. Not lawyers and judges. I want people with the education, training, and experience, in the field making those calls.