That makes you the champ of dumb and harmless posts. Thanks for playing along…
Chevron Doctrine Overruled
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
Calling you a Trumpster? I said it because you post so much like our loud and proud Trumpsters like DBM and DANC. I also apologized if you don’t identify as a Trumpster.
I knew it, I posted about it and and I am still tired of congress being a complete shit show. If you are requested, show up, or sleep in the basement.
I remember when you went on a strong rant, about dem's being allowed their own set of rules... Oh wait.. I don't recall you ever, strongly, repeatedly mentioning "dem's bad" every post, at any time the last 7 years. Not even once, other than milquetoast , oh yea, the dems are kinda bad too, I suppose... But Trump, don't ya know...
So to your question. Once congress has balls and use them totally equally. It's a total shit show.
Term limits
Single issue bills
For every new piece of legislation, they must remove/ retire 2.
Let's go Brandon. toot toot.
I'm confident that I've criticized Democrats and their policies as much or more than anyone here over the years. Again, I try to do it with honesty, facts and reasonableness. Just because you absolutely love Trump, that doesn't make every single Democrat "bad." Just because Trump deserves no support, I don't even come close to thinking every Republican is "bad." Try ramping down your emotions and ramping up the logic and search for facts.
I am a bit interested on others opinions of just how staunchly you criticize the Donkeys. I've got $5 that says their opinions are, that you don't criticize them, nearly as strong as you think you do.
I suspect we will hear their opinion shortly.
I'd put another $5 in, that no one here actually is 100% confident, that they know what your true and honest stances are. WHICH, that is fine, once we admit it.
You never have been able to understand me because you can’t get past the idea that Republicans must support Trump. Ask Goat, Zeke, DrHoops, or any lib poster here about how much we’ve disagreed over the years and I guarantee that although I despised Trump, no one criticized HRC more over the years and even while running against Trump. Especially about the email scandal.
Um, I've been here since 2010. Now ask them whom you have called out more, Hill or Donnie.
And as I've said dozens of times, I don't have to understand you. You can do what ever you want. But damn it sure would be easier to understand a consistent line.
Example ( I guess) I think we all "understand" Brad Stevens, with not much of a question. It's what make you more interesting. Just when I think I've got it figured out, bam. nope. .. Again, no big deal other than you intrigue me, due to the uncertainty. NOT A SMEAR on you. (of course I do chuckle at the toot toot thing.. )
Is that a good or bad thing? I’m not smart enough to follow the legal intellectuals ITT, but one of the key changes seems to be limiting power of the Executive branch in favor of the Legislature.
At face value, that isn’t a bad thing, particularly in the wake of EO excessive use and who we have running for President for the next term, neither of which I trust.
That being said, I similarly look out at Congress and struggle to see how that pack of losers is going to be passing proper, rational and pragmatic legislation.
It's actually limiting the power of the executive vs. the judiciary. Legislative power has not changed with this decision, although legislative "responsibility" arguably has.
Good point. I'm not sure if that's any better either, though I assume the average judge is more intelligent than the average House member and potentially all of Congress.
I was (perhaps wrongly) interpreting the majority views that Congress should make a more comprehensive approach towards laws so the ambiguity or holes aren't filled in by agencies.
I think that's what the majority hopes for, pragmatically.
Re the judge being smarter than the house, that's not what they want to do--the majority will not allow (or at least doesn't want) judges making policy decisions in interpreting the law. Instead, the fed courts should read it using legal methods of interpretation, whereas the executive branch was interpreting things from a policy perspective (it was the executive's policy, though, not necessarily Congress').
It does leave impeachment as the only stick, and we'll never see an impeachment/conviction again (unless a party gets 60 Senators and a House majority). The days of people voting against party interests are over. Impeachment without conviction means nothing, a guy that was impeached twice will probably be president again.
Where do you think the pendulum will swing when it comes to the “insatiable quest for power”? If there is no one minding the store, will the robbers barons simply dump the chemicals in the river rather than responsibly dispose of them? Do you think those who have a monetary gain will govern themselves accordingly?
The fallacy here is the implied premise that we either have the regulatory regime we have or we have the law of the jungle with no regulations at all.
What should be our goal - with regulations, taxes, trade policies, and everything else - is efficiency that offers us optimal outcomes.
When regulations are discussed, people almost invariably end up getting caught up in talking about “more” or “less.” Little, if any, specificity…much less nuance.
Does our society get a net benefit from any regulations? Yes. Does our society get a net benefit from all regulations? No. And examples abound in both categories.
The debate shouldn’t be a Yes/No debate. The debate should be how this is approached to give us the best array of outcomes.
That said, this isn’t the question that was before the court in Loper Bright.
Also, FWIW, we should always approach this question with the understanding that there always have been and always will be people who will act in their own interests without any regard to the environment, other people, society at large.
That’s a granted. It’s hard-wired into human nature and I’m no altruist.
So, yes, of course we need to have mechanisms in place that protect the things that are good but that aren’t taken much into account by people serving their own interests.
But we should also note that much regulation has been put in place at the behest of these parties, specifically to protect their interests from others.
Sad truth.
Which branch is in a better position to alter, test, and fine tune the regulations for optimal outcomes, though, on all these industries and matters? If that's the main concern, the executive is the right branch.
Eventually, the gravy seals will swoop... (swoop may be a little enthusiastic) in and clear the trash out of the way, reminding those with less than the best intent for the country, of who they actually work for.
Team Gravy may not be swift and stealthy, but they are damn determined, well armed, connected to important supply pipelines and easily deployed. They are kind of like, 30+ million Batmen.
Just shine the light, shine the damn light already !!!
Congress can't change quickly enough and isn't driven by efficiency concerns. Ever.
Easy to discount, considering the source.I am sure you will not like this analysis from yesterday's:
The Supreme Court just lit a match and tossed it into dozens of federal agencies
SEC v. Jarkesy could render much of the federal government unable to function.www.vox.com
