Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In fact, giving the Execustive branch the ability to determine what is law is pretty much putting a crown on the President and allowing him/her to be judge and jury.Judges don’t make the decisions on their own, the parties present their cases to the court. They can bring in experts etc and it might not just be a judge, but a jury.
Giving the executive branch the ability to determine what is law, is giving them a power beyond what the constitution permits.
Correct, this ruling was a win for freedomIn fact, giving the Execustive branch the ability to determine what is law is pretty much putting a crown on the President and allowing him/her to be judge and jury.
The Kings word is law, don'tcha know.
In fact, giving the Execustive branch the ability to determine what is law is pretty much putting a crown on the President and allowing him/her to be judge and jury.
The Kings word is law, don'tcha know.
Yep, in Virginia we don't elect judges, they are appointed by the legislature so by and large they tend to be more on the conservative side thus possessing more common sense than the liberal judges elected by the low IQ segments of our society.....You know the same ones that elect members of the Squad and the like.The legislative branch determines what is law, as they make the laws.
But no law can be written to cover every single little circumstance.
The we hire experts in their field to get into the minutia.
Now we will have unelected judges and justice that have no actual knowledge of an issue making those decisions.
And you some how think this is a better way.
Slightly, but not much. Justices should interpret existing law, not legislate from the bench.Is having unelected judges and justices doing it any better?
Haha no, we have a court, where people can have juries.The legislative branch determines what is law, as they make the laws.
But no law can be written to cover every single little circumstance.
The we hire experts in their field to get into the minutia.
Now we will have unelected judges and justice that have no actual knowledge of an issue making those decisions.
And you some how think this is a better way.
According to your Deep State logic, all three million federal employees are technical experts, while legal professionals and people who actually work in affected industries are too stupid to understand the issues involved. Which agency do you work for?Agencies aren’t perfect. But neither are judges. And if the question is whether technical questions should be resolved by those with the relevant expertise who work for presidents for whom we have voted, or by generalist judges selected (and sometimes hand-picked) by plaintiffs with an ideological axe to grind, the answer shouldn’t have been this hard. Deference to executive branch agencies is something we’ll miss when (as of last Friday) it’s gone.
Sorry, I was referring to what the author said.According to your Deep State logic, all three million federal employees are technical experts, while legal professionals and people who actually work in affected industries are too stupid to understand the issues involved. Which agency do you work for?
Most states also have regulations based on BTU per hour of the combustion source.
The two fictions at the heart of the devastating Chevron doctrine rulingAlthough it won’t get as much attention as some of the other rulings in this term, the court’s decision could end up having the most significant long-term impact.3 Jul 2024 ~~ By Steve Vladeck
Opinion | The two fictions at the heart of the devastating Chevron doctrine ruling
Although it won’t get as much attention as some of the other rulings in this term, the court’s decision could end up having the most significant long-term impact.www.msnbc.com
Imagine that Congress passes a statute authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency to require permits whenever material alterations are made to a “major stationary source” of air pollution (or new ones are created). So far, so good. Now imagine that a power plant near your home has three smokestacks. Does that count as one “major stationary source” or three? And what makes a stationary source “major”? Beyond these substantive questions is a procedural one: Who should resolve these matters? Unelected federal judges, who may have no particular expertise in environmental law, or the federal agency staffed with scientific and policy experts who do?
The smokestack example is a simplified version of the facts of a real 1984 case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, in which the Supreme Court held that, if a statutory term is ambiguous, courts should generally defer to an executive branch agency’s reasonable interpretation. In Chevron, that meant upholding a Reagan-era rule that defined “major stationary source” on a plantwide basis (back to our earlier example, one source, not three). The animating principle behind Chevron is that, given the range and depth of federal regulations, Congress can’t be expected to define every aspect of every agency’s power with surgical specificity. And it made more sense to let the agencies — to whom Congress delegated the relevant power in the first place — provide any final missing details. As the court explained, “Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of the Government.”
On Friday, in an ideologically divided 6-3 ruling penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court unceremoniously overruled the Chevron precedent. And although it won’t get as much attention as Friday’s other rulings in the Jan. 6 obstruction case or the Grants Pass homelessness case (neither of which will get much attention in light of Monday’s ruling in the Trump immunity case), the court’s decision overruling Chevron, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo could end up having the most significant long-term impact.
~Snip~
There are somewhere north of 430 federal agencies; even if Congress devoted one calendar day each year to one agency, it wouldn’t get to all of them. And even if it could, some agencies enforce dozens of statutes. Could even the most hard-working, institutionally responsible Congress be expected to define in detail exactly what does and doesn’t count as a “major stationary source of pollution?”
~Snip~
That may not seem like a huge deal compared to, for example, whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted for his alleged role in the storming of the Capitol. But federal regulators and regulations are all around us inspecting our meat; ensuring that everyday products, from cribs to cars, are manufactured to minimum safety standards; looking out for public health; and on and on and on.
Agencies aren’t perfect. But neither are judges. And if the question is whether technical questions should be resolved by those with the relevant expertise who work for presidents for whom we have voted, or by generalist judges selected (and sometimes hand-picked) by plaintiffs with an ideological axe to grind, the answer shouldn’t have been this hard. Deference to executive branch agencies is something we’ll miss when (as of last Friday) it’s gone.
Commentary:
"Agencies aren’t perfect."
Unfortunately Federal Agencies have been and are being politized to force agendas such as man-made climate change. This SCOTUS decision allows citizens to have a say in the fairness and science of agency regulations, which Neo-Marxiost Democrats refuse to allow as it slows the advance to communism.
The way PMSNBC is reacting basically proves SCOTUS got it right.
Here's a good example:
MSN
www.msn.comTo save spotted owls, US officials plan to kill hundreds of thousands of another owl species.
