SCOTUS just overturned Chevron deference, GUTTING three-letter agencies

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Blaine91555

Roberts makes it very clear in his decision this is not retroactive.

Yes so when say Alabama challenges the EPA, the EPA will lose unless Congress passes a law for the regulation Alabama challenges.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: namehere

They sure can do their jobs properly...they just have to do it constitutionally now and don't get to create laws based on their rules. Now they must go to congress so there are checks and balances.

Then those draconian laws get passed by my Congressman he will be gone where I live.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Depends if one or more of the manufacturers takes it to court to challenge those mandates. SCOTUS just opened the door but since its not retroactive each regulation/mandate already on the books must be challenged individually. Last I heard the auto industry in the US is very in the pocket of the government...I mean they did get bailed out a while back.

Curious too is a thought I had about citizens being able to sue state governments who also have legislated or regulated gasoline bans effective in the future, like Washington state or California since an over reaching government simply mandating gasoline bans by decree has no proven merit, but will cause immense damage to the lives of millions, some not even yet imagined or foreseen.

A coalition of businesses and citizens might be able to stop this segment of the dystopian freak show and sue them that way. Not sure, but these people if not stopped will take away the hopes and dreams of everyone. Hope this ruling leads to more of the same curbs.

Generally, these departments and agencies are bloated with uneeded redundancy, inefficiency, and financial mismanagement to put it mildly.

in these contentious times where one party or another grabs power and tries to intact laws and regulations for its political positives as much as any other reason, without understanding all of its intricacies. Intricacies that will have to be dealt with down the road, which is a common political move, cave to PAC and worry about all the consequences later.

Not suggesting states can handle it better, but let's not pretend these agencies are shining examples they have so much power and influence that they become little fiefdoms

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You would have to find an argumemt for it violating YOUR constitutional rights. If its not your rights they would likely not hear it on standing. I suppose its possible, but I am no lawyer I just pay attention to a lot of legal stuff and have some family in the law field.

Taxation without representation

Legislators need to legislate - Not Dictate



One and Done ?





How are they (ABC....123] going to act ?

Assange plea deal ...now this ... connect the dots

lol

a reply to: pianopraze

Perhaps good in some ways, to reduce agency overreach.

However, leaving this with the courts, e.g. unelected, unnacountable judges....not sure this will be better in the long run...

a reply to: putnam6

Generally, these departments and agencies are bloated with uneeded redundancy, inefficiency, and financial mismanagement to put it mildly. in these contentious times where one party or another grabs power and tries to intact laws and regulations for its political positives as much as any other reason, without understanding all of its intricacies. Intricacies that will have to be dealt with down the road, which is a common political move, cave to PAC and worry about all the consequences later.

Well said.
That’s why this decision is so overdue.
At the time it was a political cudgel for the folks who insist that big government knows best.

The more power the states wield the better the union is.
Big government is screwed up.
Always has been, always will be.

That’s the democrats demise.
They want big government and they think it knows better.
Never.

originally posted by: putnam6
Generally, these departments and agencies are bloated with uneeded redundancy, inefficiency, and financial mismanagement to put it mildly.

in these contentious times where one party or another grabs power and tries to intact laws and regulations for its political positives as much as any other reason, without understanding all of its intricacies. Intricacies that will have to be dealt with down the road, which is a common political move, cave to PAC and worry about all the consequences later.

Not suggesting states can handle it better, but let's not pretend these agencies are shining examples they have so much power and influence that they become little fiefdoms

this kind of assertion is complete bull # and you conservatives know it, you say government was made to better represent us yet all this did was hand over all power to the courts who have no term limits or any incentive to act in our interests, who have no clue what they will be ruling about so all they will do is wreck our country for no good reason, creating a real mess for our future. conservatives should be ashamed of themselves, sacrificing our nations future for personal gain, freedom my ass.

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: putnam6

Generally, these departments and agencies are bloated with uneeded redundancy, inefficiency, and financial mismanagement to put it mildly. in these contentious times where one party or another grabs power and tries to intact laws and regulations for its political positives as much as any other reason, without understanding all of its intricacies. Intricacies that will have to be dealt with down the road, which is a common political move, cave to PAC and worry about all the consequences later.

Well said.
That’s why this decision is so overdue.
At the time it was a political cudgel for the folks who insist that big government knows best.

The more power the states wield the better the union is.
Big government is screwed up.
Always has been, always will be.

That’s the democrats demise.
They want big government and they think it knows better.
Never.

well you won't be saying that for long, when the consequences hit and you lose everything you'll learn the true cost of this ruling, this won't benefit you all like you think it will.

a reply to: namehere

I am not in the EPA but have worked with them most of my career, it is big time for us. Game on! The draconian rules do need to be challenged in court 1st. But now they have standing.

originally posted by: namehere

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: putnam6

Generally, these departments and agencies are bloated with uneeded redundancy, inefficiency, and financial mismanagement to put it mildly. in these contentious times where one party or another grabs power and tries to intact laws and regulations for its political positives as much as any other reason, without understanding all of its intricacies. Intricacies that will have to be dealt with down the road, which is a common political move, cave to PAC and worry about all the consequences later.

Well said.
That’s why this decision is so overdue.
At the time it was a political cudgel for the folks who insist that big government knows best.

The more power the states wield the better the union is.
Big government is screwed up.
Always has been, always will be.

That’s the democrats demise.
They want big government and they think it knows better.
Never.

well you won't be saying that for long, when the consequences hit and you lose everything you'll learn the true cost of this ruling, this won't benefit you all like you think it will.

When chevron was the precedent, those agencies could pretty much do any damn thing they wanted.
They made unlawful policies which hurt businesses and consumers both.
Do you even have a clue about the case which started the push to kick chevron?
Here’s a little summary…

“A National Marine Fisheries Service regulation requires that herring fishing boats allow an additional person on board their small boats to serve as a monitor, tracking compliance with federal regulations. The fishermen must also pay the monitor’s salary of around $700 per day. Overall, the regulation reduces fishing profits by about 20%. Loper Bright Enterprises, a fishing company in New England, and other fisheries sued to challenge this federal government rule, arguing that NMFS lacked statutory authority to force them to pay for these monitors.”

This is just a little family business being smashed by government bureaucracies.
They’ve been getting away with destroying businesses and people’s rights for decades because of that aweful chevron ruling.
That’s big government doing whatever the f they want, like are elected.

Now, do you have any example how I could possibly “lose everything” because of this SCOTUS decision?

you know what, i noticed a pattern with these cases, no ruling seems aimed at helping Republicans, they all seem aimed at increasing the power of the courts or preserving the power they already have, so not to burst you guys bubble but i think the court is exploiting the Republicans ambitions for power to subvert the power of Congress and the executive to the courts, trying to become tyrants and control the government.

a reply to: namehere

Of course you have zero example.
Just keep spouting that mainstream media democrat talking points how it’s bad for absolutely zero reason.

This decision will promote stability in the law, granting both industry and the general public much greater certainty in the meaning of statutes.
It will also put the onus on the people’s representatives in Congress, rather than unelected bureaucrats, to fix statutes in light of new social problems.
This is a win for the rule of law over executive prerogative.

originally posted by: Tolkien
a reply to: pianopraze

Perhaps good in some ways, to reduce agency overreach.

However, leaving this with the courts, e.g. unelected, unnacountable judges....not sure this will be better in the long run...

Congress must stand up and do their jobs. Incomprehensible bills have been passed the past few decades to allow the ABC departments the leeway to create their own laws without any oversight. It is all by design. Well it was.

Found the communist.

originally posted by: boatguy12

originally posted by: Tolkien
a reply to: pianopraze

Perhaps good in some ways, to reduce agency overreach.

However, leaving this with the courts, e.g. unelected, unnacountable judges....not sure this will be better in the long run...

Congress must stand up and do their jobs. Incomprehensible bills have been passed the past few decades to allow the ABC departments the leeway to create their own laws without any oversight. It is all by design. Well it was.

Yep
Agreed

From the Speaker

a reply to: namehere

Well first of all Im not even a Republican, I'm more Libertarian than anything. LOL, and I'm damn sure aren't as emotionally distraught as you seem to be.

but it is a typical liberal agitated and demonstrative response, chill man, it's a message board FFS.

a reply to: namehere

This is about draining unconstitutional, unregulated, unappealable, permeant bureaucracy.

Here is good explanation/examples from Spike Cohen: Link