The Congress is the government body that is supposed to make laws, the Senate debates the law, and the President Signs the law.

[Mikeoxenormous]

MSN

In Friday's 6-3 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overturned 40 years of administrative law precedent, a decision former federal prosecutor Shan Wu characterized on Saturday as a "revolution," with Justice Neil Gorsuch playing a key role.

The Court's decision dismantles the Chevron deference established in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the most cited cases in American law. This doctrine had instructed courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes, acknowledging that Congress often cannot resolve every detail in legislation.

The federal agencies who are not elected officials by the people, never should of been given any capabilities to RULE over the people. This Supreme Court now has made it so again. The rogue EPA needs to have a clean house again.


I have been in that building, it uses more energy than a small city. They should start with their own, and regulate themselves the way they waste tax dollars in energy usage.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

MSN

The federal agencies who are not elected officials by the people, never should of been given any capabilities to RULE over the people. This Supreme Court now has made it so again. The rogue EPA needs to have a clean house again.


I have been in that building, it uses more energy than a small city. They should start with their own, and regulate themselves the way they waste tax dollars in energy usage.

Legislative branch: The Congress has two houses, the House and the Senate.

Both the the House and the Senate debate proposals. The House does not make laws.

If something is not law until the President signs it, the Senate does not debate any law. The OP of this thread is just another average variety bullshitter trying to pass himself off as somehow informed beyond his Junior High School civics class edumacation.

Agencies do not rule over people. Their power derives from elected representatives and the Chief executive. .

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We can all look up the US Constitution.

We all could look up the legal arguments supporting the Chevorn thingie -- for 40 plus years(?).

 

[excalibur]

Legislative branch: The Congress has two houses, the House and the Senate.

Both the the House and the Senate debate proposals. The House does not make laws.

If something is not law until the President signs it, the Senate does not debate any law. The OP of this thread is just another average variety bullshitter trying to pass himself off as somehow informed beyond his Junior High School civics class edumacation.

Agencies do not rule over people. Their power derives from elected representatives and the Chief executive. .

The First Amendment says: Congress shall make no laws ... You know, the thing (borrowing from your boy, POTATUS Biden)

So Congres does make laws.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The First Amendment says: Congress shall make no laws ... You know, the thing (borrowing from your boy, POTATUS Biden)

So Congres does make laws.

"Bills may originate in either the House of Representatives or the Senate"

Reading and comprehension fail.

 

[excalibur]

"Bills may originate in either the House of Representatives or the Senate"

Reading and comprehension fail.

First Amendment says ... Laws.

Bye.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

First Amendment says ... Laws.

Bye.

reading and comprehension is the issue

The context of how one uses a word in the English language. The claim in the OP is that the House makes a law. Is it in the law books? Can it be enforced.

The claim is that the Senate debates a law. The President signs what -- a law into law?

See? Context, and more Reading and comprehension. What the OP infers is nonsense.

1984

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC: A government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous situations as long as its interpretation is reasonable.

supreme.justia.com

2024

Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies - SCOTUSblog

This article was updated on June 28 at 3:46 p.m. In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-

www.scotusblog.com

LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO,
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The federal agencies who are not elected officials by the people, never should of been given any capabilities to RULE over the people. This Supreme Court now has made it so again. The rogue EPA needs to have a clean house again.


I have been in that building, it uses more energy than a small city. They should start with their own, and regulate themselves the way they waste tax dollars in energy usage.

The comments here. Oh boy. I wonder how they even relate to the legal arguments.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The federal agencies who are not elected officials by the people, never should of been given any capabilities to RULE over the people. This Supreme Court now has made it so again. The rogue EPA needs to have a clean house again.

SCTOUS took the power from the agencies staffed by experts and gave it to the Judiciary, staffed by people that will have no knowledge of the matters they are ruling on.

Do you really think Congress is going to all of a sudden start doing their job again?

And is is really the job of congress to make every law so very specific that there is never any grey area?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Chevron "required courts to defer to executive agencies’ interpretations of statutes." The agencies in question are Executive branch creations. Other agencies were created by the Congress (two houses).

It's an ideological issue and as such is tearing the Court apart.

Supreme Court Extends Time Frame for Challenges to Regulations​

The ruling could amplify the impact of a separate decision overturning the Chevron doctrine, which had required courts to defer to executive agencies’ interpretations of statutes.

The Supreme Court on Monday gave companies more time to challenge many regulations, ruling that a six-year statute of limitations for filing lawsuits begins to run when a regulation first affects a company rather than when it is first issued.

The case was one of several this term challenging the power of executive agencies, and the ruling could amplify the effect of a blockbuster decision last week overturning a foundational doctrine known as Chevron deference.

The vote was 6 to 3, along ideological lines.

Supreme Court Extends Time Frame for Challenges to Regulations

The ruling could amplify the impact of a separate decision overturning the Chevron doctrine, which had required courts to defer to executive agencies’ interpretations of statutes.

www.nytimes.com

List of federal agencies in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Chevron decision and it's outfall is all about ideological issues (and judicial philosophy), and as such is tearing the Court apart. When we see this sort of shit there will be backlash and it hurts the faith people have in the Judicial branch of government. But things go in cycles and people celebrating today will get the bill at a later date.

What concerns Dante most is how this affects the Court. CJ Robert's has had our respect. He is or was foremost an institutionalist before being an ideologue. Respect for the Court keeps falling. It's not all under CJ Roberts' control. But history will decide and note the recent cultural, legal, and ideological affects on the Judicial branch as defining the Roberts' Court.

note: Chevron deference

 

[para bellum]

It was not Chevron that gutted the non-delegation clause, it was the Administrative Procedures Act passed under FDR.

All Chevron did was make it impossible to challenge an agency's interpretation of a law.

If we really wanted to get back the Framer's intent, we would repeal the APA.

The SCOTUS decision just allows for some oversight wrt the interpretations, it does not change the authority of the agencies to enact regulations that have the force of law.