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

[Scerpi]

Excellent video

 

[Whippy McGee]

Ah of course, resort to silly little memes when all else fails, right?

I didn’t accuse the whistleblowers of purposely lying, I don’t know that to be the case. Maybe they truly believe they saw and heard what they claimed. What I’m saying is: their testimony was directly contradicted by Weiss, and there’s no other evidence to substantiate it. Period. It’s an empty conservative talking point, nothing more.


Whistleblowers *claim* that was the case—Weiss never said that. I didn’t miss anything, this is exactly what Mr. Holmes and I are talking about. Here is a quote from Weiss himself, under oath:

“"I am, and have been, the decision-maker on this case. At no time was I blocked, or otherwise prevented from pursuing charges or taking the steps necessary in the investigation by other United States Attorneys, the Tax Division or anyone else at the Department of Justice."



Garland has been anything but partisan. Let’s look back at all of this bullshit Republican theatre.

—Garland was an appeals cpurt judge with an impeccable reputation. Yale law professor Akhil Amar said that his very best law students applied to clerk with Garland, regardless of their political affiliation. Describing Garland, Professor Amar said, “He has a reputation for being a judge’s judge rather than a liberal’s liberal.”

—Republicans had previously called on Obama to nominate Garland to the SCOTUS. Republican Sen Orrin Hatch said in 2010:
“The president told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”

Hatch went on to predict that if Obama ever nominated Garland, that Garland would be confirmed unanimously. When Obama finally did nominate Garland, those same Republicans refused to give Garland a hearing.

—As a consolation prize for smearing Garland’s name, after the whole SCOTUS nomination fiasco was over, Republicans wanted to make Garland head of the FBI.
Republcan Sen Mike Lee: "He has been one who has got allies as a potential director nominee in both political parties.”

Mitch McConnell said, “I have spoken with the president about it. I recommended Merrick Garland.…I think it would make it clear that President Trump will continue the tradition at the FBI of having an apolitical professional.” (emphasis mine)

Garland declined that role, but wouldn’t you know it, as soon as he became AG and had a Special Counsel investigating Trump, the baseless smear campaign began again. But as AG, consider this:

—Garland didn’t have to leave Weiss in charge Of investigating Hunter Biden (Weiss was appointed under the Trump administration) but Garland did so anyway.

—Garland gave Weiss Special Counsel status as soon as Weiss asked for it
Trump’s AG could’ve done that from the start, but said it wasn’t necessary.

—Garland didn’t have to leave John Durham in charge of investigating the origins of the Russia probe either, but did so anyway. In the introduction to the Durham Report, Durham thanked Garland for keeping his word and letting Durham work independently:

“…we want to thank you and your Office for permitting our inquiry to proceed independently and without interference as you assured the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would be the case during your confirmation hearings to become Attorney General of the United States.” quote is from Durham Report p.2, emphasis mine).


TLDR: Wake the fuck up. Garland has led an exemplary career, and the smearing of his name is done for political theater, and nothing more.

Then why did Weiss tell multiple staff taking notes that he was not the decision maker and that came straight from D.C.? Who's lying? You keep dodging.

 

[Sinister]

Never worked with USDA folks. Did train with FDA though.

I guess I was lucky and never experienced those issues, but even if I did there were fairly clear guidelines I followed to deal with it and the location I was trying to inspect knew they'd get to deal with the Navajo Nation (or other tribal government) if they didn't cooperate.

In the cases my wife has had to deal with, it's not always so clear, and there arent always enforcement mechanisms that are effective even when the regulatory agency is in the right. Its not very common that they deal with blatant obstruction, but what IS common (as I'm sure you know) is willful incompetence. Not only are they incompetent, but they are resistant to direction which necessitates constant re-inspection, fines, and eventual threat of closure. Then the inspector feels bad. That rat infested place, the restaurant manager is a very nice woman and my wife hated having to shut them down but she had no choice. And at first she was getting zero support from the parent company.

 

[spamking]

In the cases my wife has had to deal with, it's not always so clear, and there arent always enforcement mechanisms that are effective even when the regulatory agency is in the right. Its not very common that they deal with blatant obstruction, but what IS common (as I'm sure you know) is willful incompetence. Not only are they incompetent, but they are resistant to direction which necessitates constant re-inspection, fines, and eventual threat of closure. Then the inspector feels bad. That rat infested place, the restaurant manager is a very nice woman and my wife hated having to shut them down but she had no choice. And at first she was getting zero support from the parent company.

The relationships with inspectors and site managers is definitely a tricky one in some cases. I would get so fed up with submitting reports with basically the same issues every year.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The gamesmanship drives me insane.

There are deals to be made, compromises and discussions that should lead to meaningful legislation, but everything comes second to elections and holding power. It all feels like a farce.

It feels like Machin and Sinema were just falling on the grenade to keep Dems from actually accomplishing their goals and pissing off their corporate donors, like if it hadn't been them someone else would have had to find some ridiculous reason to object.

With Manchin idk that it was about corporate donors as much as it is the fact that he's a Dem in a conservative state who needs to distance himself not just from the left flank of the party but even the center to retain credibility before his voters.

 

[Sinister]

The relationships with inspectors and site managers is definitely a tricky one in some cases. I would get so fed up with submitting reports with basically the same issues every year.

I've heard of cases in inspectors getting fired because of people accusing them of making threats or behaving unprofessionally, when it was the inspector being threatened because they were alone and the position isnt armed (like say, wildlife inspectors tend to be). I'd be in favor of them wearing bodycams.

 

[Sinister]

With Manchin idk that it was about corporate donors as much as it is the fact that he's a Dem in a conservative state who needs to distance himself not just from the left flank of the party but even the center to retain credibility before his voters.

Manchin is and always was a conservative Democrat. Americans think liberal and conservative are interchangeable with party because there almost isnt a such thing as liberal Republicans anymore. But he's a conservative Dem, just like Cuellar.

 

[Loiosh]

With Manchin idk that it was about corporate donors as much as it is the fact that he's a Dem in a conservative state who needs to distance himself not just from the left flank of the party but even the center to retain credibility before his voters.

He's in a tough spot for sure but his donors make me nervous on a bunch of levels. Why is this guy even a Dem?

Open Secrets - Joe Manchin

 

[BFoe]

Then why did Weiss tell multiple staff taking notes that he was not the decision maker and that came straight from D.C.? Who's lying? You keep dodging.

I’m not dodging anything. You keep repeating 3rd party claims as if they’re fact. There’s no proof that Weiss told anybody that, and in fact he testified otherwise.

I don’t like to engage in wild speculation—that’s more of your wheelhouse—but if I had to guess, I think instead of someone lying, it’s more likely a misunderstanding. For example, handwritten notes from that meeting say things like, “Weiss will ask for approval to proceed in CA.” That makes perfect sense, because Weiss didn’t have Special Counsel Status yet, meaning he only had authority in Delaware. Probably something mundane like that was misunderstood or mis-remembered, and it got blown out of proportion. I have no reason to believe that the whistleblowers didn’t mean well, but that doesn’t mean they were right. Both Weiss himself, and Garland, testified that they were incorrect.

 

[Loiosh]

Manchin is and always was a conservative Democrat. Americans think liberal and conservative are interchangeable with party because there almost isnt a such thing as liberal Republicans anymore. But he's a conservative Dem, just like Cuellar.

If you look at the bulk of what Biden has done over the years conservatives should love him.

 

[spamking]

I'd be in favor of them wearing bodycams.

This would definitely help inspectors document their findings and any issues.

 

[Islam Imamate]

He's in a tough spot for sure but his donors make me nervous on a bunch of levels. Why is this guy even a Dem?

Open Secrets - Joe Manchin

View attachment 1024721

West Virginia is one of the biggest coal producers in the nation so it makes sense that a candidate from there would have such donors.

 

[Whippy McGee]

I’m not dodging anything. You keep repeating 3rd party claims as if they’re fact. There’s no proof that Weiss told anybody that, and in fact he testified otherwise.

I don’t like to engage in wild speculation—that’s more of your wheelhouse—but if I had to guess, I think instead of someone lying, it’s more likely a misunderstanding. For example, handwritten notes from that meeting say things like, “Weiss will ask for approval to proceed in CA.” That makes perfect sense, because Weiss didn’t have Special Counsel Status yet, meaning he only had authority in Delaware. Probably something mundane like that was misunderstood or mis-remembered, and it got blown out of proportion. I have no reason to believe that the whistleblowers didn’t mean well, but that doesn’t mean they were right. Both Weiss himself, and Garland, testified that they were incorrect.

There's absolute proof he told them that. There are Feds that took notes during the meeting that confirm he said that.

 

[Loiosh]

West Virginia is one of the biggest coal producers in the nation so it makes sense that a candidate from there would have such donors.

Of course, but why the Democrats?

 

[Rod1]

What exactly would you call this from the article in the OP?

Why do you limit yourself to OP article?

If you follow this you would know conservative judge are arguing against Chevron doctrine itself, not limiting themselves to this particular care

Supreme Court likely to discard Chevron - SCOTUSblog

It has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. After more than three-and-a-half hours of oral argument on Wednesday, it seemed unlikely that the r

www.scotusblog.com

 

[BFoe]

There's absolute proof he told them that. There are Feds that took notes during the meeting that confirm he said that.

That’s not absolute proof, that’s a claim. That claim has no corroborating evidence at all. I understand you’d really like it to be true for your own partisan reasons, but it’s an accusation that is completely unsupported by any other evidence.

 

[spamking]

Why do you limit yourself to OP article?

If you follow this you would know conservative judge are arguing against Chevron doctrine itself, not limiting themselves to this particular care

Supreme Court likely to discard Chevron - SCOTUSblog

It has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. After more than three-and-a-half hours of oral argument on Wednesday, it seemed unlikely that the r

www.scotusblog.com

I limited what I used for that post because that's what was used in the OP. Regardless . . . how does that change the context of my comments and question back to you?

My opinion on the Chevron doctrine isn't hinging on how a conservative judge views it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Of course, but why the Democrats?

What do you mean why the Democrats? Why not?

 

[Loiosh]

What do you mean why the Democrats? Why not?

His donors all want to kill everyone and the planet.

Not very Democratic.

 

[Rod1]

mited what I used for that post because that's what was used in the OP.

OP article is literally saying that the case would destroy the administrative State.

Regardless . . . how does that change the context of my comments and question back to you?

Because you claim that as long as they don't exceed their power, they will be fine, when the case would outright strip regulatory agencies from the ability to enforce regulation entirely.

My opinion on the Chevron doctrine isn't hinging on how a conservative judge views it.

So you don't support its overturn?