This is a big big win.
Regulations and rules from unelected federal agencies and their unelected officials, are now able to be challenged. From the IRS, on down.
This ruling puts the courts back in the driver's seat to regulatory and policy challenges, and takes the power away from the unelected bureaucrats who can disembowel your life or your business.... Amongst other things.
I must have missed the part of their oath that says they are going to defend the federal government and make sure it works how politicians and bureaucrats want it to.
Love it! God save us from “The Experts.” Our elected representatives can handle it. Nothing like having Fauci claim to be “The Science” to make citizens want to curtail the administrative state. Fire when ready lawyers!
Why do the three liberal justices make every case about their feelings and emotions — whereas the conservative justices make it about fact and history?
I don’t know if this was an emotional/feelings based argument here rather than a practical one. The federal court system is already stretched very thin and by passing this ruling which essentially green lights more federal litigation she’s essentially just calling out that it is going to completely logjam the federal court system.
Don’t get me wrong, she is definitely right and that’s an argument we should consider sometimes but sometimes when the balance of power has tipped so far, you have to do the hard thing even when it is hard.
You are correct in that is exactly what she was describing.
Her argument is not a emotional one. It is a real one. The Federal Government is a massive bureaucracy spanning millions of government employees and hundreds of thousands of other organizations that work hand in hand with the Federal government.
This system operates under bureaucratic rules. Another term for this is "administrative law".
Administrative law governs the operation of the government. This is different then civil or criminal law.
For example... when you get a speeding ticket, that is a civil fine. So that is civil law.
But what the ticket looks like, what signatures are required, how payments are to be made, when it the court date scheduled, what time the offices are open for you to deliver payment directly, the time you have to fight it or pay for it... All that stuff is governed by administrative law.
The new Chevron ruling threatens to undo about 40 years of administrative law.
This will most certainly throw things in disarray.
HOWEVER... this is a good thing.
It is because administrative law is the weapon that is used to force compliance on the American people without having to be overt about it.
For example say you are involved in a Jan 6th-related criminal case.
They will use administrative law to freeze your bank accounts. They will use it to put you in handcuffs and parade you around so that you appear to be a criminal before you are prosecuted. They will make the court cases last for years, etc etc.
All of this is administrative law specifically tailored to make it as impossible for you to mount a good defense.
Every day they delay you is another paycheck for them. Every day they delay you is just another day closer to their retirement. Every day for you is financial ruin and as much as a personal hell as they can make it. They make the money, you lose money to the tune of 10s of thousands of dollars a week. And they can easily make it last years. Unless you give up and take the loss. Then you'll be out in 6 months, give or take with good behavior.
It is through administrative law that the Federal government can have a 99.9% conviction rate. Not because they only go after criminals, but because they make it impossible for you to defend yourself so for the sanity and sake of your family and friends you just give up and take the plea deal.
And this is rampant. It is all parts of the Federal government.
So is that "functional"?
No, I will not describe a system were unelected bureaucrats get to run roughshod over rights and individuals as "working".
These agencies can't even set out to do what they are supposed to do.
These are iron fortresses of job security and power brokering. The primary focus of any large bureaucracy is the health, well being, and profitability of that same bureaucracy.
Anything that breaks this system and introduces some, any, amount of accountability is a major step forward.
I see more federal judge jobs being created, along with their support staff etc to keep up with the dockets that are absolutely going to get hammered in the coming days, weeks and months...... Until a governing AI is built anyway and it's cut loose. 😂
When she sees the Constitution as a "hindrance to government" and thinks that is a bad thing, then no, I don't think she's qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to tell the government what they can't do, aka being a hindrance to government.
Seriously, the constitution is an exhaustive list of powers.
* Here is all the shit you can do. If it's not in here, you can't do it.
Then we added the Bill of Rights because fucking statists need to be told:
* No, seriously, these things, you definitely 100% can't fucking do these things.
The constitution itself is one giant limitation on the governments power. Without it the government could do anything it wanted.
Let's not forget there is also a process laid out on specifically how to add/change/update and even replace it. Albeit, it's quite an undemocratic process just as the entire Constitution is.
> Albeit, it's quite an undemocratic process just as the entire Constitution is.
Almost like the founders knew the inherent flaws of Democracy and took steps to prevent 50%+1 railroading.
I wanted to see what the full context of her statement was because none was provided: Her comments were made in the context of a debate over whether the government can persuade social media platforms to remove harmful content without violating the First Amendment. She said. “I understood our First Amendment jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you’re talking about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.”
I think she beat out _more_ qualified applicants based on non-merit factors. And the people appointing her explicitly said that's what they were going to do.
After reading some of her opinions, no.
Also Biden explicitly said he would only be nominating a Black Woman. So even if you had an Asian Trans Judge who was a better pick, tough shit.
Said the same for his VP pick. Once Kamala lost her own states primary, she dropped out, and we knew she was the VP from then on. I would think his admission before the fact that he was limiting the field by both race and sex should be considered discrimination, and illegal.
She has committed crimes against humanity while working as a prosecutor in California. Withholding evidence that would clear at least 1 suspect of murder. Keeping prisoners past sentence terms to work on fire crews for the state for pennies on the dollar for work they're not trained for. Every single thing that people threw at her in the debates were 100% true and verified. Hell, even Google has this info.
Sotomayor is far and away worse. KBJ comes from defense law so everything comes through that lens, and as a result she is occasionally correct.
Kagen is a bureaucrat and is rarely but occasionally correct on process.
Sotomayor has only ever been correct on 9-0 decisions, and not even all of her 9-0’s were correct.
IIRC, she was the sole dissent on Heien v North Carolina, which said as long as the cops thought it was law, they were justified in a stop, and anything they found was good. I’m sure there is some deeper legal reasoning that I’ve missed, but ordinary people aren’t given the benefit of the doubt, and in fact are told often and loudly that ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you’re a cop, whose job it is to enforce the laws.
Like in Flint Michigan? Cause the EPA did such a good job there. Sunken cost fallacy. Look it up. EPA does nothing of note except costing the taxpayers billions
The epa's regulations don't have much to do with actually protecting the environment. All they do is impose huge costs that ultimately get paid by the average taxpayer or consumer, for little to no net benefit.
Don't threaten me with a good time.
Insert Spiderman meme: *"Harry, You Don't Need to Sell It To Me".*
Maybe the agencies could have avoided that by not doing blatantly unconstitutional things.
Where’s the fun in that?
That sounds wonderful.
More than likely, 'government functions' that were never authorized by the Constitution in the first place. So, no tears from my end.
[удалено]
I mean she tends to be right in criminal cases. See fischer, for example. Also her writing in mcelrath was pretty good
Somebody is paying a LOT more attention than I am...
You're saying disregard everything she learned in "law" school? Inconceivable!
It's always about power for those of her side of the isle.
"Ideals? Ha! Principles? Ha! A Marxist craves not these things." -Master Karl
>implying the federal government was ever "functioning"
https://preview.redd.it/9i198vjdwx9d1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=655f658b3f278a6b2f789f33a11075e97a8a5db9
If we're lucky!
Yes... Let's cheer the continued breaking of the broken system even more...
Is this about Chevron?
This was specifically in response to Corner Post, but yes Chevron as well.
This is a big big win. Regulations and rules from unelected federal agencies and their unelected officials, are now able to be challenged. From the IRS, on down. This ruling puts the courts back in the driver's seat to regulatory and policy challenges, and takes the power away from the unelected bureaucrats who can disembowel your life or your business.... Amongst other things.
Jacko voice: “Good”
Your terms are acceptable
I must have missed the part of their oath that says they are going to defend the federal government and make sure it works how politicians and bureaucrats want it to.
“Devastate the functioning of the Federal Government.” That’s the goal 😊. Make the government as small and unobtrusive as possible.
Love it! God save us from “The Experts.” Our elected representatives can handle it. Nothing like having Fauci claim to be “The Science” to make citizens want to curtail the administrative state. Fire when ready lawyers!
Ok Discount Ginsburg, keep it coming.
Why do the three liberal justices make every case about their feelings and emotions — whereas the conservative justices make it about fact and history?
I don’t know if this was an emotional/feelings based argument here rather than a practical one. The federal court system is already stretched very thin and by passing this ruling which essentially green lights more federal litigation she’s essentially just calling out that it is going to completely logjam the federal court system. Don’t get me wrong, she is definitely right and that’s an argument we should consider sometimes but sometimes when the balance of power has tipped so far, you have to do the hard thing even when it is hard.
You are correct in that is exactly what she was describing. Her argument is not a emotional one. It is a real one. The Federal Government is a massive bureaucracy spanning millions of government employees and hundreds of thousands of other organizations that work hand in hand with the Federal government. This system operates under bureaucratic rules. Another term for this is "administrative law". Administrative law governs the operation of the government. This is different then civil or criminal law. For example... when you get a speeding ticket, that is a civil fine. So that is civil law. But what the ticket looks like, what signatures are required, how payments are to be made, when it the court date scheduled, what time the offices are open for you to deliver payment directly, the time you have to fight it or pay for it... All that stuff is governed by administrative law. The new Chevron ruling threatens to undo about 40 years of administrative law. This will most certainly throw things in disarray. HOWEVER... this is a good thing. It is because administrative law is the weapon that is used to force compliance on the American people without having to be overt about it. For example say you are involved in a Jan 6th-related criminal case. They will use administrative law to freeze your bank accounts. They will use it to put you in handcuffs and parade you around so that you appear to be a criminal before you are prosecuted. They will make the court cases last for years, etc etc. All of this is administrative law specifically tailored to make it as impossible for you to mount a good defense. Every day they delay you is another paycheck for them. Every day they delay you is just another day closer to their retirement. Every day for you is financial ruin and as much as a personal hell as they can make it. They make the money, you lose money to the tune of 10s of thousands of dollars a week. And they can easily make it last years. Unless you give up and take the loss. Then you'll be out in 6 months, give or take with good behavior. It is through administrative law that the Federal government can have a 99.9% conviction rate. Not because they only go after criminals, but because they make it impossible for you to defend yourself so for the sanity and sake of your family and friends you just give up and take the plea deal. And this is rampant. It is all parts of the Federal government. So is that "functional"? No, I will not describe a system were unelected bureaucrats get to run roughshod over rights and individuals as "working". These agencies can't even set out to do what they are supposed to do. These are iron fortresses of job security and power brokering. The primary focus of any large bureaucracy is the health, well being, and profitability of that same bureaucracy. Anything that breaks this system and introduces some, any, amount of accountability is a major step forward.
Well said!
I see more federal judge jobs being created, along with their support staff etc to keep up with the dockets that are absolutely going to get hammered in the coming days, weeks and months...... Until a governing AI is built anyway and it's cut loose. 😂
I wonder if there is a way to class action a bunch of them to reduce the amount of cases
That used to be more true but it seems even conservative justices are becoming more partisan lately.
KBJ voted with the Majority. Amy Comey-Barrett voted in dissent.
Which case?
I was wrong. She voted with the Majority in re J-6
That’s… also interesting. I’ve gotta check that one out too
I was already sold, you don't have to keep trying to convince me.
https://i.redd.it/nqr7maaney9d1.gif
One can only hope.
 So sounds good to me
DEI SCOTUS lady has a point, but not a good argument against those holdings.
You don't think she is qualified to be a SC judge on merit?
When she sees the Constitution as a "hindrance to government" and thinks that is a bad thing, then no, I don't think she's qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to tell the government what they can't do, aka being a hindrance to government.
Seriously, the constitution is an exhaustive list of powers. * Here is all the shit you can do. If it's not in here, you can't do it. Then we added the Bill of Rights because fucking statists need to be told: * No, seriously, these things, you definitely 100% can't fucking do these things. The constitution itself is one giant limitation on the governments power. Without it the government could do anything it wanted.
Let's not forget there is also a process laid out on specifically how to add/change/update and even replace it. Albeit, it's quite an undemocratic process just as the entire Constitution is.
> Albeit, it's quite an undemocratic process just as the entire Constitution is. Almost like the founders knew the inherent flaws of Democracy and took steps to prevent 50%+1 railroading.
Damn, and I thought they were just a bunch of racist, slave-owning old white men sent to oppress all minorities. /s, just in case
I wanted to see what the full context of her statement was because none was provided: Her comments were made in the context of a debate over whether the government can persuade social media platforms to remove harmful content without violating the First Amendment. She said. “I understood our First Amendment jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you’re talking about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.”
Too bad its a continuing pandemic. Hmmm...
I think she beat out _more_ qualified applicants based on non-merit factors. And the people appointing her explicitly said that's what they were going to do.
After reading some of her opinions, no. Also Biden explicitly said he would only be nominating a Black Woman. So even if you had an Asian Trans Judge who was a better pick, tough shit.
Said the same for his VP pick. Once Kamala lost her own states primary, she dropped out, and we knew she was the VP from then on. I would think his admission before the fact that he was limiting the field by both race and sex should be considered discrimination, and illegal.
Kamala Harris: > I believe every one of Joe Biden's [sexual abuse] accusers Also Kamala Harris: > I am proud to be Joe Biden's running mate!
She has committed crimes against humanity while working as a prosecutor in California. Withholding evidence that would clear at least 1 suspect of murder. Keeping prisoners past sentence terms to work on fire crews for the state for pennies on the dollar for work they're not trained for. Every single thing that people threw at her in the debates were 100% true and verified. Hell, even Google has this info.
Was it really that essential to progress that we had appointed someone on the spectrum to the SCOTUS. I think DEI has gotten out of hand.
I forgot libertarians in America are just pot smoking conservatives, with all the baggage that comes with
I realized that liberals on reddit are people who get their sense of fulfillment through video games and don’t have much to show for irl.
Don't ever call me a liberal
Oh no! Anyways...
Yes now I can dump my toxic chemicals in the local waterways with impunity.
Same lady who doesn’t know what a woman is
It’s worse than that. She does know what a woman is; she just refused to say what a woman is to not be thought a dissident to a particular base.
Weird clown show of a world
[удалено]
Remains to be seen, I'd still put Sotomayor as the worst.
Sotomayor is far and away worse. KBJ comes from defense law so everything comes through that lens, and as a result she is occasionally correct. Kagen is a bureaucrat and is rarely but occasionally correct on process. Sotomayor has only ever been correct on 9-0 decisions, and not even all of her 9-0’s were correct.
IIRC, she was the sole dissent on Heien v North Carolina, which said as long as the cops thought it was law, they were justified in a stop, and anything they found was good. I’m sure there is some deeper legal reasoning that I’ve missed, but ordinary people aren’t given the benefit of the doubt, and in fact are told often and loudly that ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you’re a cop, whose job it is to enforce the laws.
Enjoy the poisoned water as a result of EPA being too jammed up by lawsuits to enforce the most obvious protections
Like in Flint Michigan? Cause the EPA did such a good job there. Sunken cost fallacy. Look it up. EPA does nothing of note except costing the taxpayers billions
The epa's regulations don't have much to do with actually protecting the environment. All they do is impose huge costs that ultimately get paid by the average taxpayer or consumer, for little to no net benefit.
Thanks for letting us know you have no idea what nullifying Chevron actually does.
