With regard to all things Chevron, how about this, Congress really should repeal the vast majority of the multiplicity of federal laws. Sadly this will not happen.
Congress is allowed to rely upon “experts” when crafting legislation. Long past time for the critters to accept accountability for their actions and stop hiding behind agency interpretations.
NLRB is unconstitutional but US constitution went out the window when FDR threatened to pack the courts with commies like him. Prior to that govt could only do enumerated powers listed in Article 1 section 8 and virtually everything FDR passed to try and ameliorate Great Depression was ruled unconstitutional. Now they can do anything to the point of even cancelling positive rights given like Bill of Rights.... like freedom of association which subsequent civil rights bills totally abrogate.
"The Court does not dispute that there is a strong public interest in providing employees a mechanism to vindicate their NLRA rights. Nor does this Court find that employers and labor unions should be free from scrutiny of their labor practices. That said, Congress exceeds its power when it attempts to neuter the President’s constitutional power to remove and control executive officers by conferring a web of removal protections upon NLRB ALJs and the NLRB Members. Nothing in the injunction granted here prevents Congress from using a constitutional means to achieve its goals. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED."
Right. The court, as is usual with conservative courts, is deciding on the narrowest grounds. Contrary to the suggestion in the article I originally linked, the court specifically recognizes the legitimacy of the federal government scrutinizing both employers and labor unions under the NLRA. What it's in effect saying in this case is that Congress set up the NLRB so that its "judges" and "members" were basically free from supervision by the Executive Branch, of which they are a part--in effect, Congress created a Fourth Branch agency, whereas there are only Three Branches under the Constitution. This is a very big deal and will probably be applicable to other agencies. Thanks.
Uhhh??? This whole business with the sniper teams makes NO sense. Sniper Team #1 (arbitrary designation) has no clear shot at Crooks. Crooks knows this because he did - wait for it! - recon! ST #1 sees their shots will be blocked by the trees and has ST #2 re-orient to cover Crooks. This re-orientation takes place more than 90 seconds before Crooks takes his first shot. And SS leaves Trump on the stage? (Clearly, Donald Trump should not have been on that stage under the known threat observed and reported by rally-goers.) But then what about ST#3? I am going to speculate that this was the local LE sniper team. The diagram looks that they always had a clear shot at Crooks. Actually looks they could have thrown a rock and hit him! We are assured that SS snipers killed Crooks. Really? And that information is what? There is some informed speculation that ST#3 (local LE) DID take a shot at Crooks but missed him. When was this? Why no second, third, fourth, whatever, shot until Crooks was down? We absolutely need for all of the SS "comms" to be publicly released now! And that will happen...never.
It appears the "authorities" are not releasing any more info than possible so they can assemble/contort an investigation that incorporates valid evidence compiled separately by internet slueths.
1. If you read the article you'll see that the local sniper team wasn't placed "behind" Crooks. Not exactly. They were stationed to the right of Crooks and their line of sight would have been out over the crowd. *Having a sniper team in that location was no substitute for actually securing all the roof tops.*
2. There is no longer any question but that the SS sniper teams (and probably locals as well) were looking for Crooks before Crooks started shooting. As I keep repeating, the real issues aren't with sniper teams who were doing their jobs as assigned. The real issues are with the command chain above them. That's where the decision to send Trump onto the stage was made, the decision not to tell Trump about the problem with a possible assassin. That's where the denial of permission to shoot would have been made. That's where the locals' offer of drones was refused repeatedly.
Thanks, Mark. I understand that the counter-snipers are not the main issue, but they do raise unanswered questions and that are not trivial. Please refer to the diagram reproduced from NYT in your post. It shows three counter-sniper teams, the third of which is positioned in an adjacent building to the one used by Crooks (#3 for the purposes of this discussion). IF that team were ON THE ROOF of the building, they would have had a clear shot at Crooks but one that does not seem to be "over the crowd" as you write in your comment. There has also been discussion that this CS team was INSIDE that building and, therefore, essentially useless WRT Crooks. I am unaware of any video footage of that team on the roof. In the diagram, where would you place that #3 CS team? Was it on the roof? There are further unresolved CS issues. Dan Bongino spoke of an incredibly difficult CS shot by the SS from 400 YARDs away and through tree foliage. I think he confused "yards" with "feet", and is referring to what I call Team #2, the one that re-oriented itself from roughly facing south to facing north, and might have had less sight obstruction by the tree. Team #1, prominently placed above Trump in the famous video, does not appear to have taken a shot at Crooks, apparently because of the tree(s). We seem to be left with Team #2 as taking the kill shot on Crooks. But then, in this comment thread, there is a video in which two brothers (one an experienced hunter) report a possible CS team approximately 360 yards away in a bleacher area. Although the CS teams are not the main point, after two weeks, I would think we would have more clarity than this! There I go again!
With regard to all things Chevron, how about this, Congress really should repeal the vast majority of the multiplicity of federal laws. Sadly this will not happen.
Regarding Chevron:
Congress is allowed to rely upon “experts” when crafting legislation. Long past time for the critters to accept accountability for their actions and stop hiding behind agency interpretations.
NLRB is unconstitutional but US constitution went out the window when FDR threatened to pack the courts with commies like him. Prior to that govt could only do enumerated powers listed in Article 1 section 8 and virtually everything FDR passed to try and ameliorate Great Depression was ruled unconstitutional. Now they can do anything to the point of even cancelling positive rights given like Bill of Rights.... like freedom of association which subsequent civil rights bills totally abrogate.
Seems odd that someone capable of calculating the line of sights for multiple multiple sniper teams would not be capable of taking an accurate shot.
The way I read (well, skim) Space Technologies v NLRB (https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/akpeoxbzkpr/frankel-spacexvnlrb--PIopinion.pdf), it's a Jarkesy case, not a Chevron/Loper case. SpaceX argued that the NLRB Administrative Law Judges and Board Members are "unconstitutionally protected from removal" similar to the 5th Circuit decision in Jarkesy.
"The Court does not dispute that there is a strong public interest in providing employees a mechanism to vindicate their NLRA rights. Nor does this Court find that employers and labor unions should be free from scrutiny of their labor practices. That said, Congress exceeds its power when it attempts to neuter the President’s constitutional power to remove and control executive officers by conferring a web of removal protections upon NLRB ALJs and the NLRB Members. Nothing in the injunction granted here prevents Congress from using a constitutional means to achieve its goals. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED."
Right. The court, as is usual with conservative courts, is deciding on the narrowest grounds. Contrary to the suggestion in the article I originally linked, the court specifically recognizes the legitimacy of the federal government scrutinizing both employers and labor unions under the NLRA. What it's in effect saying in this case is that Congress set up the NLRB so that its "judges" and "members" were basically free from supervision by the Executive Branch, of which they are a part--in effect, Congress created a Fourth Branch agency, whereas there are only Three Branches under the Constitution. This is a very big deal and will probably be applicable to other agencies. Thanks.
That's probably a good call. As I recall, efforts were made to shield it from Executive Branch control.
Uhhh??? This whole business with the sniper teams makes NO sense. Sniper Team #1 (arbitrary designation) has no clear shot at Crooks. Crooks knows this because he did - wait for it! - recon! ST #1 sees their shots will be blocked by the trees and has ST #2 re-orient to cover Crooks. This re-orientation takes place more than 90 seconds before Crooks takes his first shot. And SS leaves Trump on the stage? (Clearly, Donald Trump should not have been on that stage under the known threat observed and reported by rally-goers.) But then what about ST#3? I am going to speculate that this was the local LE sniper team. The diagram looks that they always had a clear shot at Crooks. Actually looks they could have thrown a rock and hit him! We are assured that SS snipers killed Crooks. Really? And that information is what? There is some informed speculation that ST#3 (local LE) DID take a shot at Crooks but missed him. When was this? Why no second, third, fourth, whatever, shot until Crooks was down? We absolutely need for all of the SS "comms" to be publicly released now! And that will happen...never.
Just to scramble the choices of who, or did any, of the counter sniper teams shoot Crooks? Was there an additional counter sniper team?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpF3TTflITg
Why was Crooks head intact? Where's the spatter?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6or6UOk6fY
It appears the "authorities" are not releasing any more info than possible so they can assemble/contort an investigation that incorporates valid evidence compiled separately by internet slueths.
1. If you read the article you'll see that the local sniper team wasn't placed "behind" Crooks. Not exactly. They were stationed to the right of Crooks and their line of sight would have been out over the crowd. *Having a sniper team in that location was no substitute for actually securing all the roof tops.*
2. There is no longer any question but that the SS sniper teams (and probably locals as well) were looking for Crooks before Crooks started shooting. As I keep repeating, the real issues aren't with sniper teams who were doing their jobs as assigned. The real issues are with the command chain above them. That's where the decision to send Trump onto the stage was made, the decision not to tell Trump about the problem with a possible assassin. That's where the denial of permission to shoot would have been made. That's where the locals' offer of drones was refused repeatedly.
Etc.
FWIW, I believe based on my own experience that, while the shot wasn't a piece of cake, it was a doable shot for a self trained shooter.
Thanks, Mark. I understand that the counter-snipers are not the main issue, but they do raise unanswered questions and that are not trivial. Please refer to the diagram reproduced from NYT in your post. It shows three counter-sniper teams, the third of which is positioned in an adjacent building to the one used by Crooks (#3 for the purposes of this discussion). IF that team were ON THE ROOF of the building, they would have had a clear shot at Crooks but one that does not seem to be "over the crowd" as you write in your comment. There has also been discussion that this CS team was INSIDE that building and, therefore, essentially useless WRT Crooks. I am unaware of any video footage of that team on the roof. In the diagram, where would you place that #3 CS team? Was it on the roof? There are further unresolved CS issues. Dan Bongino spoke of an incredibly difficult CS shot by the SS from 400 YARDs away and through tree foliage. I think he confused "yards" with "feet", and is referring to what I call Team #2, the one that re-oriented itself from roughly facing south to facing north, and might have had less sight obstruction by the tree. Team #1, prominently placed above Trump in the famous video, does not appear to have taken a shot at Crooks, apparently because of the tree(s). We seem to be left with Team #2 as taking the kill shot on Crooks. But then, in this comment thread, there is a video in which two brothers (one an experienced hunter) report a possible CS team approximately 360 yards away in a bleacher area. Although the CS teams are not the main point, after two weeks, I would think we would have more clarity than this! There I go again!
Reread my comment--I thought I made that crystal clear:
*Having a sniper team in that location was no substitute for actually securing all the roof tops.*