Chevron Doctrine Overruled

[BradStevens]

Where we can, we should.

And cases of looted art are still being dealt with…as they should.

I disagree; we shouldn’t. Ancestors aren’t of the same moral status as their descendants. Moral rights aren’t genetically transferred, I don’t think.

By the way, the Nazi looting of art from Jews was legal, I believe, under the laws of Germany at the time.

PS: I find this a really interesting debate and you and IUCrazy are pushing in all the right places. I’m writing in a tone more certain than I probably think so I hope it doesn’t turn you off.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

So your problem should be with the ordinance and the people who made it into law…not the people who said it isn’t unconstitutional.

That’s my point. The court is not purporting to say what is and is not the right way to deal with homelessness. The court is interpreting and applying (I think, I haven’t read it) the 8th Amendment.

The proper way to get this changed is through elections and legislating.

Isn't this where courts defend from the tyranny of the majority? Just because people historically haven't liked homeless, Gypsies, Blacks, Gays, doesn't mean we should be allowed to legislate against them. Yet we know there are a lot of votes that were had in doing so

If Oklahoma decides to keep with the teach from The Bible idea, it is simple vote chasing. They even flat out know it isn't allowed.

No one has rights but the majority is wrong. But this case is flying in the face of reality. It is not possible all homeless will find housing any more than everyone will grow wings and fly over walk.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Or it was a reasonable reaction to the evolution of our legislature, its member make up, and the politics of today.

To be glib, do we really want detailed legislation coming from the likes of MTG and Cori Bush? Congress houses some of the dumbest, corrupt people in the country. Will this decision change that?

Here is the thing though, do you honestly believe that people like them don't exist in the Executive and Judicial branches? At least with Congress, all of them have to face voters on a regular basis AND they have to come to a consensus with each other, having opposing views, to get major things accomplished. An MTG or a Cori Bush sitting at the top of the EPA is far more likely to have adverse outcomes and is more likely to actually produce rulings than having a dozen crazies on each side of a 500+ person bicameral legislative branch.

Congress can be dysfunctional because we have set up ways to do end runs around them. They have a job. Actually making them perform that job is likely to lead to better outcomes as the buffers for their indecisiveness are removed. Sometimes you have to let people do the hard things and fail so that you can get actual growth.

 

[BradStevens]

Here is the thing though, do you honestly believe that people like them don't exist in the Executive and Judicial branches? At least with Congress, all of them have to face voters on a regular basis AND they have to come to a consensus with each other, having opposing views, to get major things accomplished. An MTG or a Cori Bush sitting at the top of the EPA is far more likely to have adverse outcomes and is more likely to actually produce rulings than having a dozen crazies on each side of a 500+ person bicameral legislative branch.

Congress can be dysfunctional because we have set up ways to do end runs around them. They have a job. Actually making them perform that job is likely to lead to better outcomes as the buffers for their indecisiveness are removed. Sometimes you have to let people do the hard things and fail so that you can get actual growth.

The Congressmen won’t grow from failure though. It has to be the electorate. That sounds like a monumental change that needs to happen. I don’t see it. There are too many decisions to be made w/r/t fed agencies, risk management, etc for a voter to keep track of.

Maybe your response is: exactly. Get the govt out of most of what it is doing. But that seems like a non sequitur—that the efficacy of govt need not be tied to how accountable we can make it and how much the voter could be informed on the issue.

Lots of moving parts here. Many possible unintended consequences. Which brings me back to: be conservative (while allowing for experimentation—yay federalism!).

Sorry I’ve become stream of consciousness.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

There are going to be a lot more courts cases. This will feed down through state legislatures. Executive branch agencies will be scared to take any actions that could be challenged in court. Congressional lobbyists will have increased expense accounts.

They’ll do a better job issuing regulations within the scope of the law.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Isn't this where courts defend from the tyranny of the majority? Just because people historically haven't liked homeless, Gypsies, Blacks, Gays, doesn't mean we should be allowed to legislate against them. Yet we know there are a lot of votes that were had in doing so

If Oklahoma decides to keep with the teach from The Bible idea, it is simple vote chasing. They even flat out know it isn't allowed.

No one has rights but the majority is wrong. But this case is flying in the face of reality. It is not possible all homeless will find housing any more than everyone will grow wings and fly over walk.

It’s not the job of the judiciary to referee things between majorities and minorities. Nor is it their job to vacate laws that seem harsh, are unpopular, have defects, etc.

It’s their job to make sure laws passed by legislatures comply with the Constitution (and other applicable laws).

I get that you don’t like the Grants Pass ordinance. A lot of people don’t. That doesn’t make it unconstitutional - and that’s the only role the courts are supposed to play here. And it’s the role they played here.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Isn't this where courts defend from the tyranny of the majority? Just because people historically haven't liked homeless, Gypsies, Blacks, Gays, doesn't mean we should be allowed to legislate against them. Yet we know there are a lot of votes that were had in doing so

If Oklahoma decides to keep with the teach from The Bible idea, it is simple vote chasing. They even flat out know it isn't allowed.

No one has rights but the majority is wrong. But this case is flying in the face of reality. It is not possible all homeless will find housing any more than everyone will grow wings and fly over walk.

FTR, from what I know about Oklahoma - both this policy and the Catholic Charter School - I very much suspect courts will find Establishment Clause problems there.

And that’s fine. That is completely in their purview.

 

[Univee2]

I disagree; we shouldn’t. Ancestors aren’t of the same moral status as their descendants. Moral rights aren’t genetically transferred, I don’t think.

By the way, the Nazi looting of art from Jews was legal, I believe, under the laws of Germany at the time.

PS: I find this a really interesting debate and you and IUCrazy are pushing in all the right places. I’m writing in a tone more certain than I probably think so I hope it doesn’t turn you off.

And I’ll add to this that I like this place a whole lot more when issues such as this are responded to with such outstanding quality on all sides. I’ll just keep reading now.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I disagree; we shouldn’t. Ancestors aren’t of the same moral status as their descendants. Moral rights aren’t genetically transferred, I don’t think.

By the way, the Nazi looting of art from Jews was legal, I believe, under the laws of Germany at the time.

PS: I find this a really interesting debate and you and IUCrazy are pushing in all the right places. I’m writing in a tone more certain than I probably think so I hope it doesn’t turn you off.

It’s the kind of debate that should happen at forums like this. And it’s very timely, too - because the SCOTUS and what they’re doing is a huge issue.

As I said, the courts are the primary reason I put on a Hazmat suit and voted for Trump in 2016 - because I thought it was an opportunity to finally get a court that was primarily directed by originalism and textualism….which I believe to be the proper guiding principles for the judiciary.

But, of course, there are other points of view. And there’s no reason they can’t be debated in a substantial and civil way.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Re: Chevron

Agency rules and agency fact-finding and agency decisions have always been challenged in the appellate courts/process. That won’t change.

What will change is the “when” and the standard used to decide if they strayed too far from Congressional intent. Same courthouses. Same budgets. More “republic” and “democracy” through more Congressional intent. Maybe even - GOD FORBID - more Congressional compromise and less radical partisanship and control by the fringe. (Even a Boebert or a Squad Dimber need bridge money.)

Look at the CONGRESSIONAL definitions written directly into in the ADA and FMLA. Highly detailed CONGRESSIONAL statutory language. As it should be. Let the vote whores be found responsible for their votes.

 

[BradStevens]

Re: Chevron

Agency rules and agency fact-finding and agency decisions have always been challenged in the appellate courts/process. That won’t change.

What will change is the “when” and the standard used to decide if they strayed too far from Congressional intent. Same courthouses. Same budgets. More “republic” and “democracy” through more Congressional intent. Maybe even - GOD FORBID - more Congressional compromise and less radical partisanship and control by the fringe. (Even a Boebert or a Squad Dimber need bridge money.)

Look at the CONGRESSIONAL definitions written directly into in the ADA and FMLA. Highly detailed CONGRESSIONAL statutory language. As it should be. Let the vote whores be found responsible for their votes.

Cynical prediction: this will transfer "lobbying" money away from the Exec and to Congress, with more corporations with cash writing more detailed legislation. There will be no "responsible" for among the vote whores--the electorate can't and won't keep track.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Cynical prediction: this will transfer "lobbying" money away from the Exec and to Congress, with more corporations with cash writing more detailed legislation. There will be no "responsible" for among the vote whores--the electorate can't and won't keep track.

Cynical anecdotal experience:

The ADA as drafted by Congress said an employer had a defense if they refused to hire a person who’s medical condition made them a direct threat to “others.”

The EEOC broadened the defense in its regulations. They said employers did not have to hire a person if they were a direct threat to THEMSELVES or others. So the guy with a bad back who might hurt it worse by lifting got screwed.

The court “deferred” to the EEOC interpretation.

Might get a different result now.

 

[Cortez88]

They’ll do a better job issuing regulations within the scope of the law.

Maybe. What I think you will see is a very industry friendly bent with very light regulation. Lets remember 2008-09.

I take issue with this idea that all executive branch employees are simply “unelected bureaucrats.” The rank and file are experts in their fields trying to do the right thing. I’m sure there are instances of overreach. But to just say all executive branch employees are the devil is plain wrong.

I predict the long term results will not be great.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Maybe. What I think you will see is a very industry friendly bent with very light regulation. Lets remember 2008-09.

I take issue with this idea that all executive branch employees are simply “unelected bureaucrats.” The rank and file are experts in their fields trying to do the right thing. I’m sure there are instances of overreach. But to just say all executive branch employees are the devil is plain wrong.

I predict the long term results will not be great.

I agree with your second paragraph. People apply for those jobs, resumes are vetted, interviews held,, and references checked. Then they hire the best candidate. I did that in the military when hiring DoD civilians and I do it in my civilian job. We get very good people who do very good work 95 percent of the time.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Maybe. What I think you will see is a very industry friendly bent with very light regulation. Lets remember 2008-09.

I take issue with this idea that all executive branch employees are simply “unelected bureaucrats.” The rank and file are experts in their fields trying to do the right thing. I’m sure there are instances of overreach. But to just say all executive branch employees are the devil is plain wrong.

I predict the long term results will not be great.

What kind of “expert” does it take to make the fishing industry pay for government cops when the statute doesn’t mention that?

The abuses allowed by the Chevron deferral was not about experts doing their statutory jobs, it was about the inherent problem with government, the insatiable quest for power and authority.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

What kind of “expert” does it take to make the fishing industry pay for government cops when the statute doesn’t mention that?

The abuses allowed by the Chevron deferral was not about experts doing their statutory jobs, it was about the inherent problem with government, the insatiable quest for power and authority.

Just curious, if an industry needs policed, who should pay? I think pass one law that all industries must cover enforcement of their industry.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Just curious, if an industry needs policed, who should pay? I think pass one law that all industries must cover enforcement of their industry.

Who should pay should be in the legislation. Passing a law is what is now required.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Who should pay should be in the legislation. Passing a law is what is now required.

I suggested a blanket legislation above.

But suppose congress passed a law that all food must be inspected, does not specify who pays, and does not approve federal funds, do we all starve to death? That seems to be the only logical option.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

suggested a blanket legislation above.

Ah. So you did. I suppose that’s possible. Big business would love it. So long small business.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Maybe. What I think you will see is a very industry friendly bent with very light regulation. Lets remember 2008-09.

I take issue with this idea that all executive branch employees are simply “unelected bureaucrats.” The rank and file are experts in their fields trying to do the right thing. I’m sure there are instances of overreach. But to just say all executive branch employees are the devil is plain wrong.

I predict the long term results will not be great.

There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

I’ve long thought that regulations should all be on a 5 year term. After that, they either have to face review and affirmative renewal (or modification) - or else they automatically sunset.

I think doing that would keep them fresher, more efficient…more baby and less bathwater.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

I’ve long thought that regulations should all be on a 5 year term. After that, they either have to face review and affirmative renewal (or modification) - or else they automatically sunset.

I think doing that would keep them fresher, more efficient…more baby and less bathwater.

I’m in the construction industry and this is basically how the various building codes work (at least with the trades I’m most familiar with). And they are in the purview of a good range of SMEs.

They do a very good job keeping those fresh and relevant - instead of an ever-growing leviathan that nobody could possibly know…let alone comply with.

 

[DANC]

S

Just to round out the day, anybody know where Justice Thomas is being taken by his friends for the Summer break?

Someplace nice, I hope.

 

[DANC]

Which one of you is this?

View embedded media

Oh, that's Zeke, for sure!

 

[DANC]

I mean, they kind of dealt with some of that already after they overturned Roe...except it was people outside their house who were planning to murder them.

Not to fear - Joe is going to re-establish Roe.

Not sure how he'll do that, since it wasn't a law, but a SC decision, but By God, he's going to do it!!! (I can't believe analysts haven't jumped on this)

 

[DANC]

Are you seriously equating that with rioting, assaulting police and criminal trespass? All of it because they were duped into believing the big lie about a stolen election. You always claim not to be a Trumpster, but you use the same silly defenses for Trump and the J6 criminals that open and proud Trumpsters use.

Did it not disrupt the government?

 

[DANC]

Your whole point is messed up. You again have taken a discrete point and exploded it into a broad generalization. The Chevron result was good and reasonable. That is far different from saying conservatives supported want the deferral has become. I applaud the court for stopping the run-a-way train. What I can’t figure out is why liberals want the administrative agencies to have such power and authority. That doesn’t seem to fit any political agenda. If you don’t want to answer, fine, maybe somebody else will.

Duh! Because they like agency control when they're in power, making the rules.

Not so much when Republicans make the rules....

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Did it not disrupt the government?

You really as dumb as dbm. Be proud!

 

[DANC]

How about the case making homelessness illegal. Since it doesn't specifically say homeless, it is legal to make it illegal to sleep in tents or outdoors.

I cannot fathom what they think homeless can do. There is zero practicality. We might as well outlaw diseases and conditions. Let me ask this, does anyone here think the Founders would have made sleeping outdoors or in tents illegal? What suddenly happened to originalism?

It's not illegal to sleep in tents our outdoors, but not in public areas.

 

[DANC]

You really as dumb as dbm. Be proud!

Can't answer the question? Just say so, instead of going off on your usual rant.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Can't answer the question? Just say so, instead of going off on your usual rant.

You honestly think you deserve a serious response? Read my post that you responded to and tell me how your post is responsive. This is classic DANC The Bad Faith Poster stuff. You don’t deserve a serious response.

 

[dbmhoosier]

 

[DANC]

You’re right. But the mechanisms in place to accommodate societal change are statutory legislation (at both the federal and state levels) and the amendment process.

Laws, unless they’re specifically drafted to have one, do not have a sunset date. And it is simply not the role of courts to act as a de facto legislature to use (abuse) their authority to affect changes to the law In the stead of the processes we have in place to affect them.

You’ve mentioned timeframes. Would we tell the heirs of families who had works of art looted by the Nazis that they have no rightful claim to them…because they were stolen from their ancestors almost 100 years ago?

I wouldn’t think so. The passage of time, the fact these items have changed hands at least once since then, etc. These things are not valid arguments against returning the stolen goods to their rightful owners.

Anyway, you’re absolutely right that society changes. Our framers knew this full well. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have created a federal legislature, the space for states to chart their own courses within limits, and two processes to amend the Constitution.

Did someone mention the passage of time???

 

[DANC]

You honestly think you deserve a serious response? Read my post that you responded to and tell me how your post is responsive. This is classic DANC The Bad Faith Poster stuff. You don’t deserve a serious response.

A simple yes or no question that you don't want to answer and you dare call ME a bad faith poster?

F'n hilarious.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

A simple yes or no question that you don't want to answer and you dare call ME a bad faith poster?

F'n hilarious.

Your post didn’t answer my question. Do that and I’ll consider answering yours.

 

[DANC]

Your post didn’t answer my question. Do that and I’ll consider answering yours.

What was your question?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

What was your question?

Go back and read for yourself, dipstick. You responded to it.

 

[DANC]

Go back and read for yourself, dipstick. You responded to it.

You didn't ask me any questions, but I'll be glad to answer if you tell me what it was.

Why do you play this game - claim I said or didn't say something and then refuse to say what it is?

You're not chicken-shit, are you?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

You didn't ask me any questions, but I'll be glad to answer if you tell me what it was.

Why do you play this game - claim I said or didn't say something and then refuse to say what it is?

You're not chicken-shit, are you?

WTF is wrong with you? Seriously.

Go back to the post, it’s not hard to find because you responded to it. Read the question (it wasn’t to YOU but you chimed in) and answer it, unless you are a chickenshit. I already think you are because you constantly evade answering questions and answer those not asked and you cower behind towers of lies.

 

[DANC]

WTF is wrong with you? Seriously.

Go back to the post, it’s not hard to find because you responded to it. Read the question and answer it, unless you are a chickenshit. I already think you are because you constantly evade answering questions and answer those not asked and you cower behind towers of lies.

lmao You don't even know what question you're referring to. Chicken-shit.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

lmao You don't even know what question you're referring to. Chicken-shit.

Yes I do. If you can’t find it you’re truly a moron. If you can’t find a post that you responded to in this thread, just announce, “DANC is a moron. He’s dumber than a bag of hammers. He’s also a serial liar.” Then I’ll link it for you.