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

[jefferz]

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.

To finish the paragraph

These meetings will facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.

So you're mad because the FBI noticed an upward trend in threats against school board members, teachers, etc., and wanted to form a nationwide plan on how to recognize and deal with the people making threats?

 

[spamking]

It would be overly burdensome on congress or the agencies to have to consult with congress to determine how to manage their domain. Regulatory organizations have to be independent to regulate their industries as they see fit. OSHA as an organization could not function if needed to ask mommy and daddy for every issue. I hope this gets struck down because if it isn't, it basically amounts to the neutering of federal overseeing organizations;.

They are independent to regulate as they see fit if they're following their directives and not trying to apply a new interpretation to some issue there shouldn't be any problems.

OSHA won't need to ask permission to regulate anything unless they try to color outside the lines.

 

[Limbo Pete]

They are independent to regulate as they see fit if they're following their directives and not trying to apply a new interpretation to some issue there shouldn't be any problems.

OSHA won't need to ask permission to regulate anything unless they try to color outside the lines.

Ultimately this isn't about OSHA, or any specific agency's ability to do anything. The recent SC decision re: wetlands clarifies their purpose here very clearly imo when taken together. The point isn't to make any kind of regulatory adherence in line with the scope of the constitution, or to reign in decision making powers from agencies back into the hands of congress. It isn't about trying to get congress to do anything. The point is to funnel regulatory power directly into the hands of the courts, ultimately SC; this is the judicial branch taking a huge bite out of the legislative. This is about Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, and the rest of the gang taking the power to determine the meaning of "clean water", for example, for themselves. That's the actual functional reality of what will be changed by the decision. It's not "Hey OSHA, color in the lines Congress set for you." it's "hey OSHA, the SC will now have final say over the meaning of the words 'line' and 'color'."

 

[Natural Order]

SCOTUS getting brazen. The tri-lateral balance (lol) might get even further out of whack!

 

[spamking]

Ultimately this isn't about OSHA, or any specific agency's ability to do anything. The recent SC decision re: wetlands clarifies their purpose here very clearly imo when taken together. The point isn't to make any kind of regulatory adherence in line with the scope of the constitution, or to reign in decision making powers from agencies back into the hands of congress. It isn't about trying to get congress to do anything. The point is to funnel regulatory power directly into the hands of the courts, ultimately SC; this is the judicial branch taking a huge bite out of the legislative. This is about Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, and the rest of the gang taking the power to determine the meaning of "clean water", for example, for themselves. That's the actual functional reality of what will be changed by the decision. It's not "Hey OSHA, color in the lines Congress set for you." it's "hey OSHA, the SC will now have final say over the meaning of the words 'line' and 'color'."

The only reason it got to this point was the various agencies taking extreme liberties and being given way too much leeway after the original Chevron case. The courts can barely keep up with their current issues/workload. Why would normal every day regulatory actions need to get added to their plates? I still argue that an agency doing their job within the confines of the law won't have anything to worry about or add to the court's plate.

The SC has the final say now when their are conflicts that get presented to the court right?

 

[Mr Holmes]

At least you now accept that they were indeed trying to perform a coup, but apparently they should get a pass just because they were poor at it.

No, none of them brought their guns. Explain to me why the kavanaugh protesters get a pass?

 

[Limbo Pete]

The only reason it got to this point was the various agencies taking extreme liberties and being given way too much leeway after the original Chevron case. The courts can barely keep up with their current issues/workload. Why would normal every day regulatory actions need to get added to their plates? I still argue that an agency doing their job within the confines of the law won't have anything to worry about or add to the court's plate.

The SC has the final say now when their are conflicts that get presented to the court right?

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.

 

[Lead]

Good thread @Scerpi on a key case this term

A problem with ending it is it likely won’t restore the responsibility to congress in clearing ambiguous legislation. Instead of it being deferred to a single federal agency, you’d have a bunch of different courts making their own call which would become a bigger mess. I don’t know if the case can get into this but I think Chevron should stay but they should focus on an agency’s interpretation and finding a way to keep it uniform. An agency shouldn’t change interpretation with each administration. There are some guardrails for that but it could be better, though I don’t know the detailed solution.

Seems like it will be a close vote.

 

[Lead]

The SC has the final say now when their are conflicts that get presented to the court right?

There’s limitations. Three steps with the final being something along the lines of “if the agency makes a reason interpretation that the court itself wouldn’t necessarily take, the interpretation can stand”. So it’s meant to only come into play if they are way out there with interpretation along with whatever the two other steps are (can’t remember at the moment)

Edit: search shows two steps with the first being whether it’s ambiguous. Thought there were three but maybe not.

 

[BFoe]

Weiss's claim goes against multiple people in that meeting that took notes. You're the partisan hack.

I am no hack, sir!

Mike Pence also took some notes about Trump’s coup attempt in a room full of people. If any of their recollections agree with his notes, I expect you to be completely consistent and accept that as absolute proof that Trump tried to overthrow the government. Sound good?

No, none of them brought their guns. Explain to me why the kavanaugh protesters get a pass?

They didn’t get a pass, a few hundred were arrested and charged over the course of the hearings. However: they didn’t actually delay or stop the proceeding in any actual way, this wasn’t something like certification of a presidential election which deals with the overall transfer of power of the nation’s president, I don’t think they even damaged any property, did they?

Some pushed past a barricade only to pound on the doors of the Supreme Court building and not enter; some actually waited in line for tickets to the hearings and then disrupted them after legally entering the building. Thats what actual civil disobedience looks like.

I don’t support that behavior btw, and I actually respected the way Pence handled the confirmation vote.I thought he was professional and stayed unemotional. But some of the shit you guys compare to Jan 6 is just laughable.

Fact check: Post comparing Capitol riot to 2018 Kavanaugh protests lacks context

A post comparing the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot to 2018 protests against Brett Kavanaugh doesn't acknowledge mob's violence, deaths.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Mr Holmes]

They didn’t get a pass, a few hundred were arrested and charged over the course of the hearings. However: they didn’t actually delay or stop the proceeding in any actual way, this wasn’t something like certification of a presidential election which deals with the overall transfer of power of the nation’s president, I don’t think they even damaged any property, did they?

Some pushed past a barricade only to pound on the doors of the Supreme Court building and not enter; some actually waited in line for tickets to the hearings and then disrupted them after legally entering the building. Thats what actual civil disobedience looks like.

I don’t support that behavior btw, and I actually respected the way Pence handled the confirmation vote.I thought he was professional and stayed unemotional. But some of the shit you guys compare to Jan 6 is just laughable.

Fact check: Post comparing Capitol riot to 2018 Kavanaugh protests lacks context

A post comparing the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot to 2018 protests against Brett Kavanaugh doesn't acknowledge mob's violence, deaths.

www.usatoday.com

And you know damn well no one accused them of being insurrectionists. You guys want to argue intent is all that matters but then act like this is (D)ifferent.

 

[Rod1]

No, none of them brought their guns.

Beer Hall putsch wasn't really a putsch because they sucked at it.

I think we can agree that crime is defined by intention, not how good you are at carrying it out.

Explain to me why the kavanaugh protesters get a pass?

No idea man, got to ask Trump's AG.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Beer Hall putsch wasn't really a putsch because they sucked at it.

I think we can agree that crime is defined by intention, not how good you are at carrying it out.

Their actions didn't resemble a coup or insurrection. They mostly clowned around and took photos. Calling it an insurrection is just your silly opinion which has been molded by bad propaganda.

No idea man, got to ask Trump's AG.

Duck noted.

 

[BFoe]

And you know well no one accused them of being insurrectionists. You guys want to argue intent is all that matters but then act like this is (D)ifferent.

I just explained why no one called them insurrectionists lol. And I also think it’s pretty dishonest to frame my argument as if I said that intent is all that matters. I pointed out the vast differences in actions:
— Trump Supporters in Jan 6 forced entry to the Capitol, which was not open to the public. Kavanaugh protesters remained outside, and those who entered actually had tickets.

—Trump supporters damaged property, assaulted police (something like 150 police were injured that day, including shattered spinal discs, cracked ribs, gouged eyes…), wielded flagpoles as clubs, had zip tie handcuffs, mace, stun guns, all sorts of shit. Kavanaugh protestors harmed no one, and were unarmed.

—Jan 6 protesters actually succeeded in halting the election certification, whereas no such thing happened during Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote.

And finally: yes, the intended result of expressing displeasure at a SCOTUS candidate is wildly different that the intended result of installing a candidate who lost the election, as president by violent force.

It‘s frankly kind of disgusting to compare someone buying a ticket to the Kavanaugh confirmation, entering legally, and standing up to yell “Kavanaugh Sux” before immediately and peacefully being removed, to what we witnessed on Jan 6.
The way you and others make excuses for these domestic terrorists is seriously alarming.


I‘ll save you the trouble of having to rely on the dumb “(D)ifferent” meme to try and make a point: what Trump supporters did on Jan 6 is unprecedented. No one else has sunk so low, so brazenly attacked our fee and fair elections, as these fascist fucks. You beclown yourselves trying to compare it to people protesting police brutality, racism, a SCOTUS Justice accused of sexual assault, or some dipshit pulling a fire alarm.

 

[Scerpi]

Good thread @Scerpi on a key case this term

A problem with ending it is it likely won’t restore the responsibility to congress in clearing ambiguous legislation. Instead of it being deferred to a single federal agency, you’d have a bunch of different courts making their own call which would become a bigger mess. I don’t know if the case can get into this but I think Chevron should stay but they should focus on an agency’s interpretation and finding a way to keep it uniform. An agency shouldn’t change interpretation with each administration. There are some guardrails for that but it could be better, though I don’t know the detailed solution.

Seems like it will be a close vote.

Agreed… Congress needs to do their job.

And try to avoid these situations

Of the 5 conservative judges, 2 are on the fence

Which speaks to what a gray area this is

I’ve learned a lot since I first heard about this. And I’m guessing most examples of this aren’t as controversial

But the fishing boat case clearly needs a third party to intervene. Arbitrarily forcing a $700/day expense is no joke. Really?

So there should be some instances where a judge needs to advise

 

[Mr Holmes]

I just explained why no one called them insurrectionists lol. And I also think it’s pretty dishonest to frame my argument as if I said that intent is all that matters. I pointed out the vast differences in actions:

The guy I was talking with was suggesting intent was what mattered. You responded to that, so I assumed you agreed with him. However, you're much more of a Democrat shill. There's almost no point in responding to you. But I'll do it just to point out how dishonest you are.

Okay, *yawn* here we go.

Trump Supporters in Jan 6 forced entry to the Capitol, which was not open to the public. Kavanaugh protesters remained outside, and those who entered actually had tickets.

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.

—Jan 6 protesters actually succeeded in halting the election certification, whereas no such thing happened during Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote.

Lie 2, they delayed it for a few hours.

And finally: yes, the intended result of expressing displeasure at a SCOTUS candidate is wildly different that the intended result of installing a candidate who lost the election, as president by violent force.

You are the meme. It was (D)ifferent. As if a supreme court justice isn't important.

It‘s frankly kind of disgusting to compare someone buying a ticket to the Kavanaugh confirmation, entering legally, and standing up to yell “Kavanaugh Sux” before immediately and peacefully being removed, to what we witnessed on Jan 6.

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.

The way you and others make excuses for these domestic terrorists is seriously alarming.

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

I‘ll save you the trouble of having to rely on the dumb “(D)ifferent” meme to try and make a point: what Trump supporters did on Jan 6 is unprecedented. No one else has sunk so low, so brazenly attacked our fee and fair elections, as these fascist fucks. You beclown yourselves trying to compare it to people protesting police brutality, racism, a SCOTUS Justice accused of sexual assault, or some dipshit pulling a fire alarm.

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.

PS - lol at the "muh fascist" comment. No one that uses that should be taken seriously.

 

[Lead]

Agreed… Congress needs to do their job.

And try to avoid these situations

Of the 5 conservative judges, 2 are on the fence

Which speaks to what a gray area this is

I’ve learned a lot since I first heard about this. And I’m guessing most examples of this aren’t as controversial

But the fishing boat case clearly needs a third party to intervene. Arbitrarily forcing a $700/day expense is no joke. Really?

So there should be some instances where a judge needs to advise

Oh yea, the cases recently definitely favor the situation where this looks bad. Keep in mind four justices have to agree to take up a case. With the court switching to 6-3, it’s likely most cases will have the framing desired to address anything those justices think is a problem. 5-4 you might get some from liberal justices but they would be careful in what to bring if they thought it would just be a 5-4 decision. Also, 6-3 means Roberts isn’t the middle of the court. It’s now Barrett or Kavanaugh that Thomas Alito or Gorsuch would need to consider. Barrett does seems on the fence about it. They probably care less about where Roberts would land aside from if he sided with the majority, he decides who writes the opinion. So maybe 6-3 or 3-6 is more likely than 5-4 for that reason.

 

[Rod1]

Their actions didn't resemble a coup or insurrection. They mostly clowned around and took photos. Calling it an insurrection is just your silly opinion which has been molded by bad propaganda.

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.

Duck noted.

???

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

 

[emefer]

So this suit is based on fisherman having to pay for an observer on their fishing vessel. The rule was changed placing the cost on the fishermen in 2017 during trumps first term.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the rule were deliberately changed to create a problem leading to a lawsuit to destroy the chevron doctrine.

 

[floivanus]

So this suit is based on fisherman having to pay for an observer on their fishing vessel. The rule was changed placing the cost on the fishermen in 2017 during trumps first term.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the rule were deliberately changed to create a problem leading to a lawsuit to destroy the chevron doctrine.

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.