Jo. Turley is on the case at the SCOTUS. None of what follows redeems the SCOTUS for their atrocious punt on Free Speech, but there were some major wins for constitutional order. There is also the lesson about our dysfunctional justice system—sometimes justice delayed does mean justice denied. Not all of the J6 defendannts will benefit. Don’t kid yourselves about that. The SCOTUS looks to be trying to clear the deck for the elections, but four years is a long time for justice of any sort—even a defective parody.
I'm a retired federal employee with federal health insurance under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB). My wife is still working and has her employer health insurance. I cover her because when she retires she will lose the health insurance. When someone has two or more health insurance plans, coordination of benefits (COB) comes into play. Almost always, the employer-sponsored health plan is primary. The primary plan pays and then tells my wife, in an explanation of benefits (EOB) what is left to be paid. This all spelled out contractually. My health insurance is bound by what the primary plan says is the amount left to be paid.
Except my company always decides it's going to pay what it wants to pay, not what it is legally obligated to pay. I challenged them on this. First I appealed numerous times to them, exhausted my appeals to them and formally filed a complaint with OPM, the Office of Personnel Management.
The FEHB plan booklet is a binding contract on the health insurance company and the subscriber, in this case me. Regarding what my plan pays as secondary, it states, "For medical and dental services, we will coordinate benefits to the allowable expense of your primary plan." There it is in black and white.
That quote was the basis of my appeal to OPM. They ruled against me and said I had to file in federal court to challenge their decision. They were pretty smug and condescending to deal with. The disputed money involved was not worth the expense of a lawyer and court costs.
I reached out to my congressman. My complaint was forwarded to OPM and I prevailed. I made sure to politely rub their noses in it with the OPM man assigned to my case. I admit I spiked the football.
That's the good news. The bad news is all I had to go through. I'm a layman, but I can read and interpret. It's distressing that my health insurance plan processing department is incompetent. It's beyond distressing that a federal agency is either incompetent, lazy, or in bed with the company it's regulating and not interested in getting it's decisions correct.
I'm still going to vote for Trump, but I am now suffering from Trump fatigue. I'm pretty disgusted with his abortion response.
He seems to want to say he is pro-life, but he comes out sounding like he is 'pro-choice', a term I dread, but will use in his case. I understand his wanting to thread the needle on the issue, but he has really backed away from the eloquent case he made for life, eight years ago.
She's the latest disappointment in a long line of O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, and before them, Blackmun and Stevens. Before her nomination she was highly recommended and I thought she was the real deal.
I hope no more Supreme Court appointments will be made to appease gender and race quotas. Not that there hasn't been a huge load of disappointing white men.
I recently made the point about Kavanaugh that Trump had limited choices due to Flake, Collins and Murkowski. We need better Senators (and Congressmen).
Good explanation for non-lawyers. The tendency will be to force Congress to say what their legislation really means, instead of letting agencies fill in the blanks with little meaningful oversight.
Conservatives and Republican policymakers have long been critical of the doctrine, saying it has contributed to the dramatic growth of government and gives unelected regulators far too much power to make policy by going beyond what Congress intended when it approved various laws. The authority of regulatory agencies has been increasingly questioned by the Supreme Court in recent years.
Those on the other side say the Chevron doctrine empowers an activist federal government to serve the public interest in an increasingly complicated world without having to seek specific congressional authorization for everything that needs to be done.
As The Hill report, judges previously had to defer to agencies in cases where the law is ambiguous.
Now, judges will substitute their own best interpretation of the law, instead of deferring to the agencies - effectively making it easier to overturn regulations that govern wide-ranging aspects of American life.
This includes rules governing toxic chemicals, drugs and medicine, climate change, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency and more.
I'm reading a few commentaries by both sides of the political spectrum. Some Chicken Littles on the left are forecasting doom. Some on the right are saying that this is a narrowly-tailored decision and it won't affect all administrative law, especially where Congress spoke clearly on the topic. I am a non-lawyer
Regarding agency adjudication, a true story.
I'm a retired federal employee with federal health insurance under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB). My wife is still working and has her employer health insurance. I cover her because when she retires she will lose the health insurance. When someone has two or more health insurance plans, coordination of benefits (COB) comes into play. Almost always, the employer-sponsored health plan is primary. The primary plan pays and then tells my wife, in an explanation of benefits (EOB) what is left to be paid. This all spelled out contractually. My health insurance is bound by what the primary plan says is the amount left to be paid.
Except my company always decides it's going to pay what it wants to pay, not what it is legally obligated to pay. I challenged them on this. First I appealed numerous times to them, exhausted my appeals to them and formally filed a complaint with OPM, the Office of Personnel Management.
The FEHB plan booklet is a binding contract on the health insurance company and the subscriber, in this case me. Regarding what my plan pays as secondary, it states, "For medical and dental services, we will coordinate benefits to the allowable expense of your primary plan." There it is in black and white.
That quote was the basis of my appeal to OPM. They ruled against me and said I had to file in federal court to challenge their decision. They were pretty smug and condescending to deal with. The disputed money involved was not worth the expense of a lawyer and court costs.
I reached out to my congressman. My complaint was forwarded to OPM and I prevailed. I made sure to politely rub their noses in it with the OPM man assigned to my case. I admit I spiked the football.
That's the good news. The bad news is all I had to go through. I'm a layman, but I can read and interpret. It's distressing that my health insurance plan processing department is incompetent. It's beyond distressing that a federal agency is either incompetent, lazy, or in bed with the company it's regulating and not interested in getting it's decisions correct.
I'm still going to vote for Trump, but I am now suffering from Trump fatigue. I'm pretty disgusted with his abortion response.
He seems to want to say he is pro-life, but he comes out sounding like he is 'pro-choice', a term I dread, but will use in his case. I understand his wanting to thread the needle on the issue, but he has really backed away from the eloquent case he made for life, eight years ago.
If I were a Republican Senator, you’d have to pull out my fingernails to get me to vote for using the 25th Amendment on Biden…
https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/28/amy-coney-barrett-acts-clueless-about-hunter-bidens-laptop/
She's the latest disappointment in a long line of O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, and before them, Blackmun and Stevens. Before her nomination she was highly recommended and I thought she was the real deal.
I hope no more Supreme Court appointments will be made to appease gender and race quotas. Not that there hasn't been a huge load of disappointing white men.
I recently made the point about Kavanaugh that Trump had limited choices due to Flake, Collins and Murkowski. We need better Senators (and Congressmen).
Good explanation for non-lawyers. The tendency will be to force Congress to say what their legislation really means, instead of letting agencies fill in the blanks with little meaningful oversight.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/scotus-overturns-chevron-deference-massive-blow-administrative-state
Conservatives and Republican policymakers have long been critical of the doctrine, saying it has contributed to the dramatic growth of government and gives unelected regulators far too much power to make policy by going beyond what Congress intended when it approved various laws. The authority of regulatory agencies has been increasingly questioned by the Supreme Court in recent years.
Those on the other side say the Chevron doctrine empowers an activist federal government to serve the public interest in an increasingly complicated world without having to seek specific congressional authorization for everything that needs to be done.
As The Hill report, judges previously had to defer to agencies in cases where the law is ambiguous.
Now, judges will substitute their own best interpretation of the law, instead of deferring to the agencies - effectively making it easier to overturn regulations that govern wide-ranging aspects of American life.
This includes rules governing toxic chemicals, drugs and medicine, climate change, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency and more.
I'm reading a few commentaries by both sides of the political spectrum. Some Chicken Littles on the left are forecasting doom. Some on the right are saying that this is a narrowly-tailored decision and it won't affect all administrative law, especially where Congress spoke clearly on the topic. I am a non-lawyer
JUST IN: Joe Biden only blinks 5 times during the entire debate.
Ala Jeremiah Denton, he was blinking out 'torture' in Morse Code when he forgot the last two letters.
(This is a below the belt comment by me, but he deserves it.)