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.
Both were intended to disrupt and obstruct Congressional proceedings, no? On what level are they not equivalent, because one took more people than the other? Because one was perpetrated by a member of Congress, making it much worse? Are you arguing just based on their effectiveness, because the intent was the same…
Are you genuinely trying to be serious right now? Please say no.
Do you think assault on police officers, destruction of property and criminal trespass are equivalently crimes to pulling a fire alarm? That was the question DANC wouldn't answer. Don't try to be cute. Just answer that question.
It appears that regardless, you’re not going to be serious with a response, so you could just move along.🙂
Those things are all very different than disrupting governmental functions. Marvin’s comment was to storm the court to prevent the decision being handed down. That can be done without assaulting officers, destroying property, no? So that leaves trespassing, which I would equate to pulling a fire alarm, causing the evacuation of the building so as to prevent Congressional proceedings. 😉
Easily, unless one is disingenuous or unwilling to look at things objectively, or at least recognize a different POV. So, not possible for you.🙂
I asked a specific question that DANC wouldn't answer. You chimed in and also refused to answer the specific question. Why is this a hard question to answer? I just don't get it. Also, trespassing is not the same as pulling a fire alarm. What DANC is really trying to equate is obstruction charges with pulling a fire alarm and ignoring the rest. That's what he does. Is that what you're going to do? My question is straightforward, please answer. Do you think assault on police officers, destruction of property and criminal trespass are equivalent crimes to pulling a fire alarm? Yes or no will do.
PS. I asked that specific question because the most common charges for the J6 Rioters were for those crimes.
It goes back to what I said about cultists the other day. What you do, expand and deflect onto others.
I just don't get why so many want to bypass facts and deal with hilariously false equivalencies. If you can't defend behavior honestly, maybe don't defend that behavior at all.
So the MAGApublicans are pushing to actually be the law and order party, arrest Garland for contempt of congress, but the toot tootublicans are blocking it?
www.forbes.com
House Could Vote On Arresting Merrick Garland This Week Under Rarely Used ‘Inherent Contempt’ Mechanism
The House voted earlier this month to hold Garland in contempt of Congress, but the Justice Department declined to prosecute him.
www.forbes.com
Please do this. Congressional Republicans already look like fools, but we need as much help as possible to ensure a Democratic landslide in Congress to help counter a Trump presidency.So the MAGApublicans are pushing to actually be the law and order party, arrest Garland for contempt of congress, but the toot tootublicans are blocking it?
House Could Vote On Arresting Merrick Garland This Week Under Rarely Used ‘Inherent Contempt’ Mechanism
The House voted earlier this month to hold Garland in contempt of Congress, but the Justice Department declined to prosecute him.
Restoring the authority of the state’s and restoring the legislative process is the key to restoring the Republic.
If we scan eliminate proxy voting as a means to controlling public company board seats, we will really be cooking with gas.
I've screamed for rule of law for... forever.. He is in contempt of congress. Put him, or any pub, in the cell in the basement. I don't give 2 shit's about temporary political loss, I want rule of law. For everyone. We (not your side) are drilling a hole in the swamp pool. gurggle gurggle gurggle.
But that’s not what Marv’s post, which is where I posted the fire alarm question & just laid out for you AGAIN, suggested. Storming the court does not necessitate anything but trespassing. Had it said storming the court, assaulting policeman,& destroying the property, that would be another story. What happens when basketball fans storm the court? I took his words as they were, you are applying your own interpreted meaning to them. If Marv meant all of those things, he didn’t articulate it in enough detail. You’re a narcissistic knucklehead though, so I’ll quit wasting my time on someone that thinks his opinion is the only one that matters in spite of your pontificating to the contrary.
I didn’t defend anything, I just posted a whattabout, which is commonplace on this forum from folks on your team of progressives.
Did you know the Trump administration officials ignored House subpoenas and were subsequently found in contempt by the House? Did you know they weren’t prosecuted? What do you do with these inconvenient facts?So the MAGApublicans are pushing to actually be the law and order party, arrest Garland for contempt of congress, but the toot tootublicans are blocking it?
House Could Vote On Arresting Merrick Garland This Week Under Rarely Used ‘Inherent Contempt’ Mechanism
The House voted earlier this month to hold Garland in contempt of Congress, but the Justice Department declined to prosecute him.
Huge difference. Read the transcripts of Republicans in the chamber on Jan 6, they were scared to death. Let alone the Democrats. Pulling a fire alarm should be treated seriously, serious threats of violence are far worse. If nothing else it adds intimidation to everything.
Somewhere else you say they have the same inten, so? Two men take a rifle each to kill someone. One shoots and misses, the other kills their victim. Which do you think gets a harsher sentence.
But my point, Roberts running for his life through the court may wish he had sided differently in his decision.
Mind you, I do not in any way condone anyone doing that. Roberts has an ability to treat this in the abstract.
Someone, maybe Crazed, mentioned the threats after Dobbs. That is far better of a comparison than the alarm. Anyone who threatened should be tried to the fullest extent of the law.
Strict liability goes back to the 1800s in Britain. Arose to keep factory workers safe. Vicarious liability etc.
came in the 60s in calif re products and manufacturers.
There you go R. Dworkin. You bitch
Marv was clearly implying storming the court in a manner similar to the J6 rioters, annd we know they assaulted police officers, destroyed and damaged property and committed criminal trespass. So my specific question fit into the thread where I asked it. It’s a simple question. It has a yes or no answer, though feel free to expand on it. Please answer the question because I do want to know what you think. Do something that DANC rarely does respond to what is actually in the post rather than twisting it into an unasked question and answering that.
