SCOTUS might finally rein in govt agencies

Lefties are losing their collective minds over this case. NPR is fun to read for once. And GOA is in there as well; I assume they filed an amicus brief [?]


'The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case Wednesday that could eviscerate the way the federal government regulates, well, everything. A system in place for decades has governed how judges review curbs on air and water pollution, gun safety measures and workplace protections.

But all of it could be upended by a conservative supermajority on the court at the request of an unlikely set of plaintiffs: a group of herring fishermen based in Cape May, N.J.

A case with broad implications​

The case has implications far beyond the fishing industry and has attracted support from conservative legal foundations, the Gun Owners of America, and a trade group for electronic cigarette-makers, among others.

David Doniger, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit advocacy group, said those organizations have a specific goal in mind.

"The real purpose of it is to enfeeble the federal government so that we don't have the capacity to deal with modern problems, and the billionaires and big companies can just do what they want and not be checked," Doniger said.'
 
Sounds like a good start:

'
CNN —
The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority has spent several hours Wednesday attacking a longstanding legal doctrine that gives federal agencies wide latitude to create policies and regulations in various areas of life.

The justices are hearing two cases concerning the so-called Chevron deference, which emerged from a 1984 case. Oral arguments in the first case went well beyond the allotted hour, with the conservatives signaling their willingness to overturn the decades-old case and their liberal colleagues sounding the alarm on how such a reversal would upend how the federal government enforces all kinds of regulations.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics/supreme-court-epa-neil-gorsuch-chevron
Congress routinely writes open-ended, ambiguous laws that leave the policy details to agency officials. The Chevron deference stipulates that when disputes arise over regulation of an ambiguous law, judges should defer to agency interpretations, as long as the interpretations are reasonable.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative who has long expressed misgivings about the Chevron deference, at one point boiled his understanding of the doctrine down to one simple outcome when courts examine ambiguous statutes under its terms: “The government always wins.”

“Chevron is exploited against the individual and in favor of the government,” Gorsuch said.
 
Ferrisfan said:
I would contest that Congress isn’t necessary if they can defer to agencies.
Click to expand...
Excellent point! They have ceded the budgeting process to the Executive, or eliminated it, depending on how you look at it. They ceded to the Executive their power to declare war long ago, with the War Powers Act. One of the few things they have not ceded is their power to influence , behind the scenes, how the Executive spends money, so that they can be enriched by lobbyists.
 
I got to hear the last hour or 90 minutes, and these were my thoughts on it that I was sharing elsewhere...

ketanji jackson is talking now. this lady really does like to hear herself speak

the lady defending chevron seems to know she doesn't really have a leg to stand on. er, defending the government's current interpretation of chevron

"we should keep it, and people can fight it in court" / "but the lower courts don't always listen to higher courts" / "the court can issue a reminder to the lower courts" / "again? haven't we done that like 15 times?" / "and some of the courts now strike down some of the agency rulings... so that's why you know it's working as is"

kav was like "your argument is that overturning will be a shock to the system, but we have shocks to the system every 4 or 8 years when a new presidential administration appoints new agency staff" and ketanji jumped in saying that we need to defend democracy because the will of the people voted for all those policy changes

hah. this lady says taking lawmaking power from the congress and giving it to the agencies is GOOD for the courts, because the courts get to recognize that the elected legislature doesn't HAVE to make laws and can delegate it out and not have to worry about so many challenge cases
 
DrScaryGuy said:
ketanji jackson is talking now. this lady really does like to hear herself speak

the lady defending chevron seems to know she doesn't really have a leg to stand on. er, defending the government's current interpretation of chevron
Click to expand...
Stupid diversity token hire. Change my mind.
 
noway2 said:
Stupid diversity token hire. Change my mind.
Click to expand...
Nobody in their right mind can argue she wasn't. Let's play "fun with math"...

Biden specifically said he was still looking at candidates, but his pick would be the first black woman nominated. That means that he had binders full of black women, and knew long before his pick was made that that's all he was considering.
Just by saying the nominee would be black, he diversified about 87% of the population out of the running, and saying it would be a black woman means roughly 93% were out (assuming black population is around 13%, and half of those are women).

As for the people who might be eligible for the job, it was undoubtedly higher levels of exclusion since black women get degrees, and advanced degrees, at a much lower rate than white people. ABA says that in 2020 only about 5% of practicing lawyers were black, so we're down to 95% of the eligible people diversified out. Black women do tend to do better with degrees than black men, so we'll give them the "bigger half" and guess at a solid 3% of practicing lawyers.
Thanks to diversity and inclusion, NINETY SEVEN percent of potentially eligible people were not even considered for the job solely on the basis of sex and gender.

Equity is not equality.

Edit - I don't know anything about her qualifications. but you can't wash this stink off of her. she WAS a diversity hire, regardless of qualifications.
 
Last edited:
DrScaryGuy said:
Nobody in their right mind can argue she wasn't. Let's play "fun with math"...

Biden specifically said he was still looking at candidates, but his pick would be the first black woman nominated. That means that he had binders full of black women, and knew long before his pick was made that that's all he was considering.
Just by saying the nominee would be black, he diversified about 87% of the population out of the running, and saying it would be a black woman means roughly 93% were out (assuming black population is around 13%, and half of those are women).

As for the people who might be eligible for the job, it was undoubtedly higher levels of exclusion since black women get degrees, and advanced degrees, at a much lower rate than white people. ABA says that in 2020 only about 5% of practicing lawyers were black, so we're down to 95% of the eligible people diversified out. Black women do tend to do better with degrees than black men, so we'll give them the "bigger half" and guess at a solid 3% of practicing lawyers.
Thanks to diversity and inclusion, NINETY SEVEN percent of potentially eligible people were not even considered for the job solely on the basis of sex and gender.

Equity is not equality.

Edit - I don't know anything about her qualifications. but you can't wash this stink off of her. she WAS a diversity hire, regardless of qualifications.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t Thomas a diversity hire? He filled the seat of Thurgood Marshall, arguably because there had to remain a black person on the court.

I’m no fan of Ketanji, I think her arguments are absolutely ridiculous and completely ignore the constitution, as if it’s merely a recommendation, but you can’t deny she is intelligent and highly qualified.
Was she the best person for the job? Absolutely not! I’m guessing she was the most eager to go along with the wishes of the left and of course fit the Brandon requirements (black female).
 
Being a blatant diversity hire should be grounds for immediate rejection during confirmation. At the same time, I’m not very impressed with that Darling Amy of the evangelicals, who was another form of diversity hire. Her position on the 2A is near abysmal.
 
Looks like Jackson is recused from one of the two cases. Not sure if that helps. Seems to take away a vote against.
 
Timfoilhat said:
Looks like Jackson is recused from one of the two cases.
Click to expand...
That's curious. Wonder what her conflict of interest might be? Previous work for a law firm or agency with ties to a fisheries regulation case?
 
Windini said:
That's curious. Wonder what her conflict of interest might be? Previous work for a law firm or agency with ties to a fisheries regulation case?
Click to expand...
She heard the case on a lower court
 
Jerzsubbie said:
but you can’t deny she is intelligent and highly qualified.
Click to expand...
I absolutely can and will deny that. She can't even tell me what a woman is.
"Oh but that was all gaming. Of course she knows what a woman is."
That's even worse.
She's a witch.
 
Friday said:
I absolutely can and will deny that. She can't even tell me what a woman is.
"Oh but that was all gaming. Of course she knows what a woman is."
That's even worse.
She's a witch.
Click to expand...
I see you also know the game she’s playing. A witch? Yes. Evil? Yes. Dumb? Hardly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom