It has long been my opinion that Congress must pass separate bills for every regulation the executive branch wants to write. I don't think the Constitution allows the kind of delegation of power that Congress has been allowing for the last 90 years. I hope the decision is at least 6-3 overturning Chevron.
IDK about this being a potential positive to do away with Chevron all together. I think the incompetence (as called out) by the lower courts will rue the day (Stern's argument of courts not being subject matter experts) and therefore keep the Administrative state in position to continue to be judge, jury, and...
Just one more despicable action by a government that can’t be trusted to tell the truth about anything.
Sorta right up there with the way the “staunch” republicans held the line on the budget so they could get some leverage for border security/control! Oh, wait, sorry I got it wrong, they folded like a cheap umbrella in a hurricane and caved at the last minute to kick the can down the road. But hey, at least they got nothing in return, so they got that goin for us. Yep, Mike Johnson made a big difference. PATHETIC
I read the Cleveland article on the Federalist this morning and also noted her cautiousness regarding how the decision may come down. The only liberal justice she mentions was Kagan who is a defender of the status quo and that is, undoubtedly, where the other two liberals will camp out. From Cleveland: "Kagan noted that overturning Chevron conflicted with the principle of stare decisis — another doctrine of humility — which, as she put it, says “we don’t willy-nilly reverse things unless there’s a special justification.” Then came her talking point: “And you’re saying blow up one doctrine of humility, blow up another doctrine of humility, and then expect anybody to think that the courts are acting like courts.”" Here Kagan seems to be trying to intimidate the other justices by insinuating that deconstructing Chevron will result in a further reduction of credibility of the court following the dismantlement of Roe.
Kagan gets called out by Gorsuch in Cleveland's 6th takeaway:
"Gorsuch, who filled the vacancy on the court left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death and was having none of Kagan’s argument, called on his predecessor’s name in retort: “One lesson of humility is [to] admit when you’re wrong. Justice Scalia, who took Chevron, which nobody understood to include this two-step move as originally written, turned it into what we now know, and late in life, he came to regret that decision.”"
We'll have to wait and see if Robert's will try and split the baby again, which seems to always be his fallback position.
Kagan only because Sotomayor is afraid to utter anything anymore due to her lack of experience/knowledge (looking stupid) and Jackson is still trying to define "what is a woman".
One correction. Antonin was not a jurist in the decision. He praised the decision but was not yet on the court. He later recanted his praise. I found all this out yesterday reading preparatory work to understand the original Chevron decision, the appeals decisions and how the court is likely to rule.
According to my source (can't remember but I think it was by a law professor linked by Real Clear Politics), conservatives originally praised this decision as the courts were more liberal than before. (I am referring to the mid-1980s, not the Obama/Biden picks.) It was thought to rein in the Dem judges from striking down administrative agency decisions promulgated by Reagan appointees.
That said, I join you in cautiously awaiting a favorable outcome in this case before the court.
I realized after my first comment that Scalia could have been involved as an appellant judge with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I have not found a record of that court's vote. Ginsburg wrote the decision for the majority.
Thanks. That’s what I thought. It would be very big news if this finally gets overturned
Has this been decided yet?
No. It seems the biggest decisions are still to be published.
And if Chevron was in 1984, then Scalia wasn't on SCOTUS at that time.
It has long been my opinion that Congress must pass separate bills for every regulation the executive branch wants to write. I don't think the Constitution allows the kind of delegation of power that Congress has been allowing for the last 90 years. I hope the decision is at least 6-3 overturning Chevron.
IDK about this being a potential positive to do away with Chevron all together. I think the incompetence (as called out) by the lower courts will rue the day (Stern's argument of courts not being subject matter experts) and therefore keep the Administrative state in position to continue to be judge, jury, and...
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-caught-huge-rigging-ev-carbon-credits-taxpayer-expense
What, the Feds cooked the numbers?
No, that can’t be right.
Just one more despicable action by a government that can’t be trusted to tell the truth about anything.
Sorta right up there with the way the “staunch” republicans held the line on the budget so they could get some leverage for border security/control! Oh, wait, sorry I got it wrong, they folded like a cheap umbrella in a hurricane and caved at the last minute to kick the can down the road. But hey, at least they got nothing in return, so they got that goin for us. Yep, Mike Johnson made a big difference. PATHETIC
Thanks. I hope you're right. We'll see. But I don't underestimate the evil out there and the ways they have of getting to people.
I read the Cleveland article on the Federalist this morning and also noted her cautiousness regarding how the decision may come down. The only liberal justice she mentions was Kagan who is a defender of the status quo and that is, undoubtedly, where the other two liberals will camp out. From Cleveland: "Kagan noted that overturning Chevron conflicted with the principle of stare decisis — another doctrine of humility — which, as she put it, says “we don’t willy-nilly reverse things unless there’s a special justification.” Then came her talking point: “And you’re saying blow up one doctrine of humility, blow up another doctrine of humility, and then expect anybody to think that the courts are acting like courts.”" Here Kagan seems to be trying to intimidate the other justices by insinuating that deconstructing Chevron will result in a further reduction of credibility of the court following the dismantlement of Roe.
Kagan gets called out by Gorsuch in Cleveland's 6th takeaway:
"Gorsuch, who filled the vacancy on the court left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death and was having none of Kagan’s argument, called on his predecessor’s name in retort: “One lesson of humility is [to] admit when you’re wrong. Justice Scalia, who took Chevron, which nobody understood to include this two-step move as originally written, turned it into what we now know, and late in life, he came to regret that decision.”"
We'll have to wait and see if Robert's will try and split the baby again, which seems to always be his fallback position.
Kagan only because Sotomayor is afraid to utter anything anymore due to her lack of experience/knowledge (looking stupid) and Jackson is still trying to define "what is a woman".
Mr. Wauck,
One correction. Antonin was not a jurist in the decision. He praised the decision but was not yet on the court. He later recanted his praise. I found all this out yesterday reading preparatory work to understand the original Chevron decision, the appeals decisions and how the court is likely to rule.
According to my source (can't remember but I think it was by a law professor linked by Real Clear Politics), conservatives originally praised this decision as the courts were more liberal than before. (I am referring to the mid-1980s, not the Obama/Biden picks.) It was thought to rein in the Dem judges from striking down administrative agency decisions promulgated by Reagan appointees.
That said, I join you in cautiously awaiting a favorable outcome in this case before the court.
I realized after my first comment that Scalia could have been involved as an appellant judge with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I have not found a record of that court's vote. Ginsburg wrote the decision for the majority.
Tx! Yes, Scalia was a vocal defender of Chevron for years, including after he got on the SCOTUS (5 years after Chevron).
https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=was+scalia+involved+in+chevron
I wonder if the judges know something about a future ‘pandemic’ and are revoking administrators ability to mandate?
Thanks Mark. This looks promising. One can only hope that the majority has the courage to do what is right for the American people. Fingers crossed.
I pray for their courage every day.
If the majority had the courage to overturn Roe, I think they'll find the courage to overturn Chevron, assuming they decide it's bad precedent
In my layman's view, the court abrogated its duties. The Constitution is over all subsequent statutes, agency rules and court decisions.
My guess is that all the abuse they endured has caused them to steel their backbones to not be intimidated by mob rule.
No mention of the "wise latina" and her left-wing comrades. I think we can all guess which way they'll be voting.