Chevron Doctrine Overruled
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
The question in the post YOU responded to but are too stupid to find is::
Answer that, chickenshit. “That” is pulling a fire alarm.
@Marvin the Martian
The point you've tried to make several times in this thread is a good one, and one that lawyers defensively don't give enough credence to. For all our training, and our insistence that the law is the law, and, that we only, how did Roberts put it? Call balls and strikes? For all that, it's quite common that we instinctively understand which result is, in our minds, right, and we find a way to justify it.
Consider strict liability. That's an indelible part of American tort law now, but it was basically invented out of whole cloth by the California courts when presented with a case that demanded a certain outcome, because it was the only just one. So they invented a way to arrive at that outcome.
Obviously all of us who have already attended law school spent a lot of time learning about Chevron. It struck me immediately as one of those cases: the court found a way to get to the result it desired. Of course, try as I might, I couldn't find a reason to disagree with them. As much as I disliked the theory of Chevron, the alternatives all didn't work. So I'll be quite fascinated now to see how the law develops, once it's been put out of its misery.
But there's no question that the court constantly shifts its theory back and forth to accommodate the results it wants to see. I think it was Scalia who once admitted in an interview that he wasn't actually that good of an originalist, and was perfectly willing to throw originalism out the window when he didn't like where it took him. Quite a bit of honesty on his part in those words.
The point you've tried to make several times in this thread is a good one, and one that lawyers defensively don't give enough credence to. For all our training, and our insistence that the law is the law, and, that we only, how did Roberts put it? Call balls and strikes? For all that, it's quite common that we instinctively understand which result is, in our minds, right, and we find a way to justify it.
Consider strict liability. That's an indelible part of American tort law now, but it was basically invented out of whole cloth by the California courts when presented with a case that demanded a certain outcome, because it was the only just one. So they invented a way to arrive at that outcome.
Obviously all of us who have already attended law school spent a lot of time learning about Chevron. It struck me immediately as one of those cases: the court found a way to get to the result it desired. Of course, try as I might, I couldn't find a reason to disagree with them. As much as I disliked the theory of Chevron, the alternatives all didn't work. So I'll be quite fascinated now to see how the law develops, once it's been put out of its misery.
But there's no question that the court constantly shifts its theory back and forth to accommodate the results it wants to see. I think it was Scalia who once admitted in an interview that he wasn't actually that good of an originalist, and was perfectly willing to throw originalism out the window when he didn't like where it took him. Quite a bit of honesty on his part in those words.
"Are you seriously equating that with rioting, assaulting police and criminal trespass?"
Yes, I do. They are all criminal charges.
That clear enough for you?
It's critically important for the cultists to draw false equivalencies for everything. Hillary only became deathly ill after Trump's health became a concern. Biden only became a pedophile after Trump grabbed all those pussies. That's SOP for them. As soon as their hero displays a flaw, they expand that flaw and deflect it onto someone else.
It's literally a textbook example of how cultists behave.
I'm sorry you don't believe your own eyes when Biden sniffs and fondles young girls and women.
I'm sorry you didn't believe your own eyes when the video showed Hillary being shoved into a van by her own staff.
That's a you problem.
Before the storming starts, please give the Leviathan enough lead time to put their undercover teams together.
And so it begins
oilprice.com
Biden’s De Facto EV Mandate At Risk after Supreme Court ‘Chevron’ Ruling | OilPrice.com
The tailpipe emissions limits, which the EPA finalized just a few weeks ago, look especially vulnerable in light of the Supreme Court ruling
oilprice.com
“The subjectively right result” versus "separation of powers."
How does it feel to be a threat to democracy?
I asked if they were equivalent crimes. If you weren’t a bad faith poster you could answer this easy question.
'Bout damn timeAnd so it begins
Biden’s De Facto EV Mandate At Risk after Supreme Court ‘Chevron’ Ruling | OilPrice.com
The tailpipe emissions limits, which the EPA finalized just a few weeks ago, look especially vulnerable in light of the Supreme Court ruling
You think they're the same, since the discussion is around disrupting government business.
Stop trying to slide out of this like a snake in the grass. You won’t answer the question because you know they aren’t equivalent and you’re such a bad faith poster you won’t acknowledge it.
