Law US Supreme Court to decide on the Unelected Power of Federal Alphabet Agencies

[emefer]

February 2020 is when the final rule was published that put the burden on Loper Bright.

And it most certainly wasn’t changed to get a challenge to Chevron in front of SCOTUS, there’s far more terrible Chevron instances during Trump’s term than this one.

And $700/day is a ridiculous amount of money for a small company to have to pay, no wonder sea food prices have skyrocketed.

I saw the 2020 year as well but from article in OP

Initially proposed with government funding, the program took a dramatic turn in 2017 under the Trump administration, placing the financial burden of the monitors on the fishing industry.

 

[emefer]

New Civil Liberties Alliance
funded by conservative donors including the Koch network, says it's "committed to cutting the administrative state down to size."

Gun, e-cigarette, farm, timber and home-building groups are among the business groups supporting the fishermen. Conservative interests that also intervened in recent high court cases limiting regulation of air and water pollution are backing the fishermen as well.

Not surprised.

 

[Mr Holmes]

So they weren't trying to stop the EC vote count? that's your position?

Kind of hard to argue with you because you seem unable to take a clear position.

I don't know what they were doing. Typically coupes involve guns and violence. As mentioned earlier it looked like misguided civil disobedience to me.

???

Am i defending these guys? I don't know why they weren't charged and if they indeed tried to break the Constitutional order i believe they should have had the hammer dropped on them.


That being said, its kind of weird to say its "double standards" of current AG when that event happened under Trump

Well, at least you'll stand by your statements and not derp about how that was different and didn't count.

 

[Rod1]

I don't know what they were doing.

They were trying to stop the EC vote from happening.

As mentioned earlier it looked like misguided civil disobedience to me.

I would assume a lot of them were just oblivious as to the repercussions of what trying to stop the EC vote entails, ignorance of the law excuses nobody though.

I don't think most of them deserve hard prison, but then again States tend to overreact when they are themselves victims of a crime.

Well, at least you'll stand by your statements and not derp about how that was different and didn't count.

Because i don't have a "side" in this thing? I don't give much of a shit about politics as long as there are no existential threats to the current Western world order, when shit happens that threatens such a thing like the rise of iliberal populists (right or left) i tend to worry more.

If things were optimal for me we would still be living in the Clinton v Bush Sr era politics.

 

[Loiosh]

I don't know what they were doing. Typically coupes involve guns and violence. As mentioned earlier it looked like misguided civil disobedience to me.


Well, at least you'll stand by your statements and not derp about how that was different and didn't count.

The Cline Center's Coup d'État Project has categorized the storming of the US Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 as both an attempted auto-coup and as an attempted dissident coup, reflecting the distinctive activities of different actors involved in the event.

 

[Loiosh]

A self-coup, also called an autocoup (from Spanish autogolpe) or coup from the top, is a form of coup d'état in which a nation's head, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means. The leader may dissolve or render powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assume extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. Other measures may include annulling the nation's constitution, suspending civil courts, and having the head of government assume dictatorial powers.

 

[Mr Holmes]

The Cline Center's Coup d'État Project has categorized the storming of the US Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 as both an attempted auto-coup and as an attempted dissident coup, reflecting the distinctive activities of different actors involved in the event.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/

The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack, opens new tab on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

 

[Loiosh]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/

The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack, opens new tab on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

This specifically is what we should be debating.

The Reuters claim is heavily contested as it's wildly oversimplified. The activities at the Capitol weren't the whole thing, they weren't even the endgame.

Yes, It Was an Attempted Coup

Your video doesn't mention the hours of delay where Trump's close supporters begged him to do or say something as they watched the riot. We have hours of testimony from The United States House Select Committee.

How can the fake electors not be considered an attempt to overturn the election?

 

[BFoe]

You’re right about one thing, this is probably a pointless discussion. You will continue to shill for fascists, and I will continue to oppose you.

I am going to reply though to your ridiculous assertions.

Lie 1, we have video evidence of Capital police opening the door for the Trump supporters. Tickets or no tickets, they still tried to interfere.

It’s a lie to say Trump supporters forced entry to the Capitol? What’s this?


This doesn’t look like any tour or field trip I’ve ever seen.

Lie 2, they delayed it for a few hours.

So you’re acknowledging that the certification was delayed? How is it a lie on my part, when you are agreeing with me? <45>

We have laws against obstructing proceedings of Congress by threats, violence, corruption, intimidation— which is very applicable to Jan 6 insurrectionists, but almost entirely inapplicable to Kavanaugh protesters. Most of them were charged with shit like disorderly conduct, or crowding, which is all they *could* be charged with. A law against obstructing an official proceeding, like 18 USC 1503 carries a punishment that ranges from a simple fine up to 10 years in prison plus a fine. I mean, it’s like mitigating factors or degrees of severity are entirely foreign concepts to you.

Lie 3, they blocked the hallways with the intention of preventing him from being sworn in. Then they had to be removed in handcuffs. Afterwards they tried to beat down the doors of court house.

Tried to beat down the doors? With what, their hands? No police wre assaulted, no property was damaged, no official proceeding was obstructed. They banged on the door and yelled. And were arrested and charged accordingly.

The way you twist things around for your side is pathetic. I really can't imagine an adult man being alarmed by someone not believing J6 was worse than 9/11

What a weird thing to bring up. I‘ve not said anything about 9/11. In fact, I’m not sure if I’ve ever made a single post comparing the two events.

Trying to prevent a SCOTUS from being sworn in is unprecedented. Taking over several blocks of a major city including a police station is unprecedented. 2 billion in damages from nationwide racial riots is unprecedented. You're joke of a poster that is unable to think for yourself. You hear Joy Reid and Don Lemon calling it an insurrection and believe that it must be true.

This is just lazy posting.

I observed that Trump was trying to steal the election in this post from Nov 27, 2020, just a few week’s after the election, and before Jan 6 even happened.
”https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...o-fast-we-cant-keep-up.4147099/post-162762978

I don’t need some liberal cable news pundits—which is not where I get my news anyhow—to tell me what to think. I have eyes, ears, and a fairly good knowledge of history and civics. That’s really all that’s needed.

Donald Trump is a fascist. He is currently running for president on an openly fascist platform. Things like tearing down the American flag in the Capitol and replacing it with a flag dedicated to the Dear Leader, like we saw on Jan 6, is fascist behavior. You can keep right on making excises and justifications for it if you want to—but it’s dangerous. There’s very worrisome and dangerous shit happening in the US right now, and it’s people’s apathy or excuse-making that ultimately makes those dangerous things possible.

 

[jk7707]

Actually, you're twisting yourself into knots avoiding having to concede what happened. Here is the letter - https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download

To this end, I amdirecting the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with each United States Attorney, to convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders in each federal judicial district within 30 days of the issuance of this memorandum.

He wanted action in every federal district. Not just action in where ever these alleged threats came from.

I'm not twisting anything. Read the damn content of what you posted. The "action" is to convene meetings in each federal district as to how to respond to THREATS against schoolboard members.
It's literally in the title of the memo.

You're the one ignoring all of the language specific to threats of violence against school administrators and being duped by the "FBI is investigating parents for going to school board meetings" BS narrative.

 

[spamking]

But the agencies, not Congress, possess the detailed area of expertise required to make qualifying policy assessments. Congress mandates clean water, clean air, etc., but Rep Old Man From Ohio isn't an environmental scientist. And then you multiply that need for expertise by several orders of magnitude. Congress always has the authority to check agencies that go oitside their scope. They have that power, they use that power. It's entirely their prerogative. Are you going to make the school principal write the word for word, fully detailed curriculum for every single class at their school, or leave it to the teacher?
But I digress, this isn't even the actual issue. What the SC wants is to take the practical power of qualifying responsibility for the courts. It's a way of writing legislation from the bench. They just did a transparent version of this regarding wetlands law. On the one hand, there's no law Congress writes that this SC is bound to respect. On the other, it's a lot more powerful and potent to grant yourself a blanket power and allow lower courts to superimpose it at a much higher rate.

Fair enough. I think I've already provided my stance here in several comments that address agencies working within/without their defined scope. But we both know if they stay within it there aren't issues. Neither principals or teachers write the actual curriculum they use most of the time . . . that's usually handled by the district's curriculum manager.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Fair enough. I think I've already provided my stance here in several comments that address agencies working within/without their defined scope. But we both know if they stay within it there aren't issues. Neither principals or teachers write the actual curriculum they use most of the time . . . that's usually handled by the district's curriculum manager.

But the entire idea of "they just need to stay within the rules" is reductive at best, and disingenuous and antagonistic at worst. The entire point of giving experts the ability to construct qualifying technical standards is to ensure they actually reflect expert opinions and procedures, while acknowleding Congress cannot possibly write a bill that is somehow 100% indisputably articulate, certainly not with dealing with,say, complicated environmental science. The SC knows this, and of course the forces lobbying them know this. They know that it will result in the actual language of regulation policy being dictated at the court level.
All the teachers in the public school district I worked at, including me, built a large portion of the technical curriculum for their own courses. I had to do it for others as well. And the "curriculum manager" positions (different name here, not one person) were also occupied by teachers.

Spoiler

 

[spamking]

But the entire idea of "they just need to stay within the rules" is reductive at best, and disingenuous and antagonistic at worst. The entire point of giving experts the ability to construct qualifying technical standards is to ensure they actually reflect expert opinions and procedures, while acknowleding Congress cannot possibly write a bill that is somehow 100% indisputably articulate, certainly not with dealing with,say, complicated environmental science. The SC knows this, and of course the forces lobbying them know this. They know that it will result in the actual language of regulation policy being dictated at the court level.
All the teachers in the public school district I worked at, including me, built a large portion of the technical curriculum for their own courses. I had to do it for others as well. And the "curriculum manager" positions (different name here, not one person) were also occupied by teachers.

Spoiler

Staying within their scope is exactly what they should be doing. Constructing technical standards isn't the issue though. It's when those change without new information being made available to justify the changes. Just consider some of the recent ATF rules and how they've changed solely based on the whims of whoever is in the Oval Office.

I think my wife would prefer to write her own curriculum too . . .

 

[Limbo Pete]

Staying within their scope is exactly what they should be doing. Constructing technical standards isn't the issue though. It's when those change without new information being made available to justify the changes. Just consider some of the recent ATF rules and how they've changed solely based on the whims of whoever is in the Oval Office.

I think my wife would prefer to write her own curriculum too . . .

And Congress has the ability to exercise full authority over that scope, which they do. But they do not and cannot micromanage the vastness of qualifying regulatory standards. Even a fully functional legislative branch couldn't do that. It makes no sense. And the SC knows this.
K12 bearuacracy is plenty bad enough here, my condolences on anyone dealing with it in the south

 

[spamking]

And Congress has the ability to exercise full authority over that scope, which they do. But they do not and cannot micromanage the vastness of qualifying regulatory standards. Even a fully functional legislative branch couldn't do that. It makes no sense. And the SC knows this.
K12 bearuacracy is plenty bad enough here, my condolences on anyone dealing with it in the south

Significant changes to regulations that will have a big impact on whatever industry they apply to should definitely be micromanged.

The FDA updates the Food Code every 2-4 years . . . that provides their scope when it comes to enforcing food safety, etc. at the Federal level. If the FDA Commissioner decides to completely change a portion of the code and issues an addendum (which happens regularly) and it's found that the addendum will bankrupt many businesses or industry partners that the FDA certifies/inspects I don't think it should be put into practice just because the Commissioner deems it necessary. Now, like the ATF the FDA might put something out that requests public input for a change, but more often than not those comments aren't considered and the rule change is pushed through. That shouldn't happen.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Significant changes to regulations that will have a big impact on whatever industry they apply to should definitely be micromanged.

The FDA updates the Food Code every 2-4 years . . . that provides their scope when it comes to enforcing food safety, etc. at the Federal level. If the FDA Commissioner decides to completely change a portion of the code and issues an addendum (which happens regularly) and it's found that the addendum will bankrupt many businesses or industry partners that the FDA certifies/inspects I don't think it should be put into practice just because the Commissioner deems it necessary. Now, like the ATF the FDA might put something out that requests public input for a change, but more often than not those comments aren't considered and the rule change is pushed through. That shouldn't happen.

But now you've taken one hypothetical example of a thing you don't like and turned it into a massive, sweeping deregulatory power grab across our governing branches. The SC isn't ruling piece meal with this; they are poised to completely eliminate qualifying regulatory standards at the expert level. They _want_ businesses to sue and they _want_ lower courts to be able to eliminate regulations almost like a line item veto. They don't want Congress to have this power anymore.

 

[spamking]

But now you've taken one hypothetical example of a thing you don't like and turned it into a massive, sweeping deregulatory power grab across our governing branches. The SC isn't ruling piece meal with this; they are poised to completely eliminate qualifying regulatory standards at the expert level. They _want_ businesses to sue and they _want_ lower courts to be able to eliminate regulations almost like a line item veto. They don't want Congress to have this power anymore.

Not really, I'm sure if folks wanted to find there there'd be others to pick from . . . the FDA Food Code won't suddenly go away due to this ruling. The FDA certification of medical devices won't go away because of this . . .

As I've said previously, look at the recent rule changes the ATF has attempted. Now those are ones I definitely don't like.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Not really, I'm sure if folks wanted to find there there'd be others to pick from . . . the FDA Food Code won't suddenly go away due to this ruling. The FDA certification of medical devices won't go away because of this . . .

As I've said previously, look at the recent rule changes the ATF has attempted. Now those are ones I definitely don't like.

The point though, the actual practical outcome that seems likely, isn't about any specific regulation. It's about who makes decisions on the language of qualifying regulatory standards.

 

[spamking]

The point though, the actual practical outcome that seems likely, isn't about any specific regulation. It's about who makes decisions on the language of qualifying regulatory standards.

I'm not getting that from this . . . it might be part of it, but I'm seeing it more of how an existing standard is going to potentially get changed due to some new interpretation. Not that the existing regulation is going to get done away with or that a brand new regulation will have more hoops to jump through than in the past.

 

[Scerpi]

New Civil Liberties Alliance
funded by conservative donors including the Koch network, says it's "committed to cutting the administrative state down to size."

Gun, e-cigarette, farm, timber and home-building groups are among the business groups supporting the fishermen. Conservative interests that also intervened in recent high court cases limiting regulation of air and water pollution are backing the fishermen as well.

Not surprised.

The abuses by the Alphabet agencies go in both directions... dependent on the Current Admin.

Short Sighted victories for one side often come back to bite them in the ass later. It happens all the time.

There's no reason judges shouldn't rule on disputes between these parties. Of course when one side in a dispute has authority, they're going to side with themselves almost every time. You lefties sure love to point it out how Police always seem to come out clean when they investigate themselves (which I also agree is horseshit)

It's human nature