phew, that was a close one ...

Supreme Court Limits E.P.A.’s Power to Address Water Pollution

in front of the paywall

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2023 10:58AM by Fritz.

You think this is good?

Will have negative impacts on Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi Delta, for starters.

My friend Lynn Teague said it well:

"Some folks think the right wing SCOTUS was installed to allow abortion bans. That is secondary. Protecting wealth and ending regulation of businesses to protect the public is the primary goal for those funding SCOTUS takeover."

Quote
Lemon Drop
You think this is good?

nearly every post I make on this side has at least a small degree of sarcasm.
I'm a NYer. We've seen it all and are seldom surprised.

I think Lynn is spot on.

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.

Quote
Lemon Drop
My friend Lynn Teague said it well:

"Some folks think the right wing SCOTUS was installed to allow abortion bans. That is secondary. Protecting wealth and ending regulation of businesses to protect the public is the primary goal for those funding SCOTUS takeover."

Yeah, the wealthy economic conservatives have always used the social conservatives to give them the votes needed to elect governments that will give them large tax cuts and less government regulation. They are more than happy to give the culture war types restrictions on abortions as a way to get those things. After all, they have the money to go get their abortions somewhere if they need to so why should they care.

---

e pluribus unum



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2023 11:30AM by Ted King.

Quote
Fritz

Quote
Lemon Drop
You think this is good?

nearly every post I make on this side has at least a small degree of sarcasm.
I'm a NYer. We've seen it all and are seldom surprised.

I think Lynn is spot on.

Gotcha.

Quote
Fritz
phew, that was a close one ...

Supreme Court Limits E.P.A.’s Power to Address Water Pollution

...Contrary to the actual text of the Clean Water Act which extends to "discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States."

---

Funny/not funny:

Was talking with a guy about non-stock-market investments and we discussed the thought of buying one of those U-store places. He said you have to watch those really closely, because (he said) what some people will do is rent one with a bogus ID, pay a year's rent up front, and then fill the unit up with various toxic chemicals/waste/transformers that are incredibly expensive to dispose of properly.

They disappear, and then it's your problem. And from watching TV, I only thought abandoned rental units were filled with junk and the occasional treasure...

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Fritz
phew, that was a close one ...

Supreme Court Limits E.P.A.’s Power to Address Water Pollution

...Contrary to the actual text of the Clean Water Act which extends to "discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States."

Right. The Supreme Court seems to be more and more determined to set policy - that suits their ideology - that by law should be the purview of agencies that are following the law. Even when the law and science go against their ideological bent.

---

e pluribus unum

Quote
Lemon Drop
My friend Lynn Teague said it well:

"Some folks think the right wing SCOTUS was installed to allow abortion bans. That is secondary. Protecting wealth and ending regulation of businesses to protect the public is the primary goal for those funding SCOTUS takeover."

100%, full-stop, this. Social conservatism is a Trojan horse...or perhaps I should not use the word Trojan, as contraception is on the anti-choice hit list.

W Virginia v EPA limits the EPA's ability to make stuff up without express authority via legislation. [www.supremecourt.gov] [en.wikipedia.org]

Also effected the BATFE, which is why they keep getting sued. They regularly exceed their authority. ! injunction granted just 2 days ago on the new pistol brace fiasco. Still waiting on results of the other requests for injunctions. Either of them are nationwide.

Sackett v EPA will likely get the Bump Stock ban and the Pistol Brace is now a SBR decision tossed just by itself.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2023 07:46PM by Smote.

kind of related.

another from the Berkshire Eagle.

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.

We need to err on the side of protecting our natural resources. Those that err on the side of profit over sustainability have enjoyed two centuries of regulatory capture in this country.

Quote
Lemon Drop
My friend Lynn Teague said it well:

"Some folks think the right wing SCOTUS was installed to allow abortion bans. That is secondary. Protecting wealth and ending regulation of businesses to protect the public is the primary goal for those funding SCOTUS takeover."

This. Big business is glad to throw the Christians nuts a bone, to make sure they get the votes.

Fat Donnie was the best example of that!

---

San Antonio, TX (in the old city)


"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Eli Weisel

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"I don’t want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it." - Billy Graham 1981

"Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise" - Barry Goldwater

Quote
Acer
We need to err on the side of protecting our natural resources. Those that err on the side of profit over sustainability have enjoyed two centuries of regulatory capture in this country.

Oh absolutely. But the way to do it is clear and concise laws with plainly spelled out penalties. Then the EPA (or the BATFE or NRC etc) has real guardrails directing them on how to do their jobs, and then when someone runs afoul of the regs, backed by laws, you can't really push back.

None of this really existed, which is why the ruling. The 2 big rulings affecting Agencies lately were because of the EPA. They did this to themselves. There are going to be Executive Branch spankings for quite some time over this. It is to, among other reasons, prevent presidents from telling an agency get it done and make something go away. Both Trump and Biden did this in the past 6 years.

Quote
Smote

Quote
Acer
We need to err on the side of protecting our natural resources. Those that err on the side of profit over sustainability have enjoyed two centuries of regulatory capture in this country.

Oh absolutely. But the way to do it is clear and concise laws with plainly spelled out penalties. Then the EPA (or the BATFE or NRC etc) has real guardrails directing them on how to do their jobs, and then when someone runs afoul of the regs, backed by laws, you can't really push back.

None of this really existed, which is why the ruling.

You and I must read different news sources;

Alito: the Clean Water Act did not authorize the EPA to protect the bodies of water its text was specifically amended to protect

Quote

The law [as written and passed by Congress] expressly protects “waters of the United States” (like rivers and lakes) as well as “wetlands adjacent” to these waters. Congress added the wetlands provision in 1977 to codify the EPA’s definition of “adjacent,” which also happens to be the actual definition: “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring.” Under that interpretation—the one Congress adopted—wetlands that neighbor a larger body of water remain protected, even if they aren’t directly connected.

In a separate opinion, Justice Kagen points out:

Quote

"Adjacent" means neighboring, whether or not touching; so, for example, a wetland is adjacent to water on the other side of a sand dune. That congressional judgment is as clear as clear
can be which is to say, as clear as language gets.

Alito wants to pretend its just all so confusing, and extreme interpretations would be untenable, so he just throws out the original text and decides for himself what the law should be.

For this very reason, Justice Kavenaugh dissented from Alito's reasoning, essentially saying I thought you claimed to be an "Originalist" or a "Textualist" -





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2023 11:25PM by pdq.

The ruling was 9-0, there was dissent on the reasons for the votes, but the votes were unanimous.

I don't base this on news stories, I base it on lawyers' breakdowns who are experts in their field.

The reason the EPA lost was that they even thought they should have started the fight in the first place. The law was clear. They just ignored it. It is endemic in the regulatory agencies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2023 11:47PM by Smote.

It seems that the text is never specific enough when some don't like what it says.

---

Quote
mattkime
It seems that the text is never specific enough when some don't like what it says.

Also part of the problem, because the Agencies seem to think they have the authority to interpret the laws. They don't, the Judicial Branch DOES. That is the biggest reason that SCOTUS has decided to grant cert, and hear a case next session. Specifically, if the Chevron Doctrine allowing defference, should be thrown out. If they granted cert, they must be leaning on tossing it out, otherwise why grant cert?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2023 01:05AM by Smote.

Quote
Smote

Quote
mattkime
It seems that the text is never specific enough when some don't like what it says.

Also part of the problem, because the Agencies seem to think they have the authority to interpret the laws. They don't, the Judicial Branch DOES...

[www.law.cornell.edu]

administrative law

Agencies are created through their own organic statutes, which establish new laws, and in doing so, create the respective agencies to interpret, administer, and enforce those new laws... because Congress cannot enforce and administer every law it enacts, it must rely on the agencies to administer, interpret, enforce, and otherwise regulate various federal laws that Congress has enacted.

---

"The decision was nominally unanimous, with all the justices agreeing that the homeowners who brought the case should not have been subject to the agency’s oversight because the wetlands on their property were not subject to regulation in any event. But there was sharp disagreement about a new test the majority established to determine which wetlands are covered by the law."

Therein lies the rub. The rub that establishes the precedent that undercuts the EPA legislated mandate to protect the natural resources of this country.

Quote
Acer
"The decision was nominally unanimous, with all the justices agreeing that the homeowners who brought the case should not have been subject to the agency’s oversight because the wetlands on their property were not subject to regulation in any event. But there was sharp disagreement about a new test the majority established to determine which wetlands are covered by the law."

Therein lies the rub. The rub that establishes the precedent that undercuts the EPA legislated mandate to protect the natural resources of this country.

Yeah, while the ruling was 9-0 for the defendants, the court split 5-4 on the reasoning:

Quote

In a concurring opinion authored by Kavanaugh and joined by the three liberal justices, Kavanaugh argued the "continuous surface connection" test adopted by the majority "departs from the statutory text, from 45 years of consistent agency practice, and from this court's precedents."

In other words, more conservative judicial activism and legislating from the bench. They used to say this was awful - they probably still pretend to do so - but in practice they're rewriting existing laws with 50-year precedents, left and right.

As I've read elsewhere, if the EPA, initiated by a Republican president some 50 years ago, suddenly cannot regulate things the law specifically says it can, what federal agency can regulate?

I see the FDA coming next. This SCOTUS will decide the medical experts at the FDA will somehow not be able to make decisions on medications despite abundant scientific evidence of their efficacy and safety, if conservative justices (MDs all - ) decide they don't like it.

This isn't justice; it's thuggery.

Quote
pdq

Quote
Acer
"The decision was nominally unanimous, with all the justices agreeing that the homeowners who brought the case should not have been subject to the agency’s oversight because the wetlands on their property were not subject to regulation in any event. But there was sharp disagreement about a new test the majority established to determine which wetlands are covered by the law."

Therein lies the rub. The rub that establishes the precedent that undercuts the EPA legislated mandate to protect the natural resources of this country.

Yeah, while the ruling was 9-0 for the defendants, the court split 5-4 on the reasoning:

Quote

In a concurring opinion authored by Kavanaugh and joined by the three liberal justices, Kavanaugh argued the "continuous surface connection" test adopted by the majority "departs from the statutory text, from 45 years of consistent agency practice, and from this court's precedents."

In other words, more conservative judicial activism and legislating from the bench. They used to say this was awful - they probably still pretend to do so - but in practice they're rewriting existing laws with 50-year precedents, left and right.

As I've read elsewhere, if the EPA, initiated by a Republican president some 50 years ago, suddenly cannot regulate things the law specifically says it can, what federal agency can regulate?

I see the FDA coming next. This SCOTUS will decide the medical experts at the FDA will somehow not be able to make decisions on medications despite abundant scientific evidence of their efficacy and safety, if conservative justices (MDs all - ) decide they don't like it.

This isn't justice; it's thuggery.

What that majority of the Supreme Court justices are leaning into really hard is that it is not practical for Congress to pass laws that explicitly state in detail every conceivable circumstance the law applies to and how the agency should rule under each conceivable circumstance and then essentially saying, "Well, hey, since the law doesn't explicitly say in detail that the agency can regulate things under such and such circumstance, then the agency can't regulate it." And then the majority can pick and choose which times they want to interpret the law as not specific enough so as to accomplish their ideological goals.

---

e pluribus unum



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2023 09:51AM by Ted King.

hope no one is a lawyer, but ....

whadya call 400 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

a good start.


there seems to be no such thing as "plain English" anymore, where the laws of the US are concerned.

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.

Quote
Fritz
there seems to be no such thing as "plain English" anymore, where the laws of the US are concerned.

There never was. There was a movement to require "plain English" on consumer level contracts and terms of use and the like back in the late '70s through the '80s, but that didn't last. When was the last time you saw one that was less than several pages in length?

My Apple Music T&C dis"agreement" is only 20 pages.

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.

At 9-0, clearly there was a flaw of some sort. But the Federalist Society Sycophant wing used it as cover for their libertarian bullsh*t.

There IS a legal solution that can be done. Congress legislates the authority in certain matters to the various Agencies to interpret the laws. They userped that authority away from Congress. That's why these lawsuits across the Agencies. It's not just one Agency, under one Director. It's endemic.

And because of Chevron defference, they became the SMEs of the regulations and deffinitions, so when sued, they said the law or regulation meant what they wanted it to mean, lawsuit over. The courts accepted their defense at face value, and essentially didn't question it.

Agencies are given authority to interpret the law by Congress. They can't "usurp" it.

Congress doesn’t seem to be saying to agencies “hey! Stop usurping!” …but even if they were, they could pass a law.

---

Quote
Acer
Agencies are given authority to interpret the law by Congress. They can't "usurp" it.

---

Quote
Acer
Agencies are given authority to interpret the law by Congress. They can't "usurp" it.

Congress never gave the ATF the authority to change legal definitions of short barrelled rifles, or "machine guns" hence the law suits. Those 2 definitions were set forth in the GCA of 1934. Only a change to the law, by Congress, can alter those deffinitions. Agencies do it all the time, and are now being called on it.

"Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases." [www.whitehouse.gov] So even the Executive Branch of the government acknowledges they don't have the authority to interpret the law.

"Article 3 of the United States Constitution establishes the Judicial Branch, which consists of the United States Supreme Court. The Judicial Branch interprets the laws passed by the Legislative Branch. For more information on the Judicial Branch, refer to “Judiciary.” [www.law.cornell.edu]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2023 04:46PM by Smote.

Quote
Smote

Quote
Acer
Agencies are given authority to interpret the law by Congress. They can't "usurp" it.

Congress never gave the ATF the authority to change legal definitions of short barrelled rifles, or "machine guns" hence the law suits. Those 2 definitions were set forth in the GCA of 1934. Only a change to the law, by Congress, can alter those deffinitions. Agencies do it all the time, and are now being called on it.

"Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases." [www.whitehouse.gov] So even the Executive Branch of the government acknowledges they don't have the authority to interpret the law.

Courts have FINAL interpretation of the law.

...By virtue of a bunch of progressive judicial activists in 1803, reading into the Constitution a previously undocumented power of "judicial review."

[en.wikipedia.org]

An originalist/textualist would strike this down in a heartbeat, right?

---

How about we have a thread where we don't have to talk about firearms? K thx.

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote

Quote
Acer
Agencies are given authority to interpret the law by Congress. They can't "usurp" it.

Congress never gave the ATF the authority to change legal definitions of short barrelled rifles, or "machine guns" hence the law suits. Those 2 definitions were set forth in the GCA of 1934. Only a change to the law, by Congress, can alter those deffinitions. Agencies do it all the time, and are now being called on it.

"Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases." [www.whitehouse.gov] So even the Executive Branch of the government acknowledges they don't have the authority to interpret the law.

Courts have FINAL interpretation of the law.

...By virtue of a bunch of progressive judicial activists in 1803, reading into the Constitution a previously undocumented power of "judicial review."

[en.wikipedia.org]

An originalist/textualist would strike this down in a heartbeat, right?

So it is your position that the White House, and by extension, the Executive Branch, doesn't understand the role and authority of the Judicial Branch?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2023 04:53PM by Smote.

Are you saying the White House does not think the executive branch has the power to write regulations?

Fundamentally, many agency regulations have to do with trying to balance public interests with private interests when applying laws that are passed in an effort to set parameters for that balance. With respect to the Clean Water Act, the law was meant to try to balance the interests of private property owners with the public interest to not have our common water polluted.

I think the key term in the ruling the Court majority made here is the "wetlands adjacent" language in the law. That terminology is in the law as a way to not give private property owners the freedom to pollute water that can flow from their land into public waters. That was one of the primary purposes of the law.

But if we look at the wording Alito used we can see that he actually undermines the intended balance. In his opinion he said, "“continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’". As pointed out by the dissenting opinions by other Justices, "continuous" does not mean the same thing as "adjacent" and there is nothing else in the law to imply that it was intended to apply to a continuous connection. Even more, by inserting the word "surface" Alito further undermines the intended balance between private and public interests because water most definitely very, very often does not flow only from private property to public property through only a surface connection. A tremendous amount of pollution travels from private property to public property through the subsurface. His "interpretation" undermines the intent of the law. And he did it because of his ideological preference to put private interests above public interests. This is a common theme we are seeing more and more from the "conservative" Court majorities.

---

e pluribus unum

Quote
Ted King
But if we look at the wording Alito used we can see that he actually undermines the intended balance. In his opinion he said, "“continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’". As pointed out by the dissenting opinions by other Justices, "continuous" does not mean the same thing as "adjacent" and there is nothing else in the law to imply that it was intended to apply to a continuous connection. Even more, by inserting the word "surface" Alito further undermines the intended balance between private and public interests because water most definitely very, very often does not flow only from private property to public property through only a surface connection. A tremendous amount of pollution travels from private property to public property through the subsurface. His "interpretation" undermines the intent of the law. And he did it because of his ideological preference to put private interests above public interests. This is a common theme we are seeing more and more from the "conservative" Court majorities.

Quacks like a "legislating from the bench" duck to me.

Quote
Acer
Are you saying the White House does not think the executive branch has the power to write regulations?

They have the authority to, when authorized by Congress. And presidents often order various Agencies to make things happen, sometimes through Executive Order. It doesn't mean they have the authority in every instance, and certainly doesn't mean the EO is legal either. Hence the bumpstock lawsuit, and the pistol brace lawsuits. Both involve the BATFE redefining something when only Congress has the authority to do so, and only by ammending the GCA of 1934.

These are just 2 specific issues I am well versed in. The EPA and other Agencies have similar MOs to varying degrees.

Purely hypothetical. President Biden could try and sign an Execitive Order mandating the EPA require 200mpg effeciency for any ICE powered vehicle sold in the US. Doesn't mean he has that authority, nor does it mean the EPA does either. That is a backdoor ban on ICE vehicles.

The SCOTUS Chevron Defference case next session is against the fisheries agencies. I think NOAA. They are requiring extra deckhands to count fish for quotas, and requiring the boat and crew to pay for them. Because they say so, not because it is the law. IIRC.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2023 05:43PM by Smote.

In the EPA wetland case, we have an agency writing regulations that are actually closer to law as written and understood heretofore than the Alito's ex cathedra divination of what congress "really meant."

I'm not debating that at all. But Congress wrote muddled law perhaps, as is their right I suppose. But that is no excuse for the EPA seeing a hole in the laws, and filling them on their own authority, not by the authority of Congress.

You can literally fill a pothole in the street in front of your house. You don't have that authority though, despite the fact it obviously needs to be done.

Our elected representatives write the laws. No one elected anyone to anything in an Agency. They are either hired, or appointed.

Now, I have had many positive interactions with members of the BATFE, the Coast Guard (in reality halfway an Agency, halfway DoD/Homeland) and numerous Fish and Wildlife officers. Most have been decent people willing to work with you so everyone has a good day.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2023 06:35PM by Smote.

Quote
Smote
I'm not debating that at all. But Congress wrote muddled law perhaps, as is their right I suppose. But that is no excuse for the EPA seeing a hole in the laws, and filling them on their own authority, not by the authority of Congress.

Agencies are created by Congress with authority delegated by both Congress and the executive. They do not have their own authority.

They have to go through a public process to promulgate regulations and to ensure that those regulations accord with their legislative mandate.

They literally cannot do what you say they do.

---

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote
I'm not debating that at all. But Congress wrote muddled law perhaps, as is their right I suppose. But that is no excuse for the EPA seeing a hole in the laws, and filling them on their own authority, not by the authority of Congress.

Agencies are created by Congress with authority delegated by both Congress and the executive. They do not have their own authority.

They have to go through a public process to promulgate regulations and to ensure that those regulations accord with their legislative mandate.

They literally cannot do what you say they do.

Can not means not physically able to. They obviously can, because they did.

And where is the BATFE"s mandate to redefine what a "machine gun" and "short barreled rifle" is? There is NOT one. They even published letters saying that braced pistols were NOT SBRs (I have one of those letters, and the brace it goes to), until Pres Biden said he didn't like them, make them go away. Same with Pres Trump and bump stocks. The BATFE, under Pres Obama, said bump stocks were not "machine guns" and were perfectly legal. He had the BATFE scrutinize everything, but even he admitted they were not machine guns.

Until the political winds change. Congress, at no time passed any new legislation, or ammend older legislation, about either. Thus at least 3 different pistol brace lawsuits, with 2 limited preliminary injunctions already granted in different federal circuit courts. Waiting on a 3rd, which encompasses 25 states and every person in them. That one is looking more likely every day, expected by the end of the month. Injunctions usually only happen when there is a substantial chance the plaintifs will prevail. Multiple bump stock lawsuits as well, and at least one preliminary injunction already.

These lawsuits are because they did something they should not do. I earlier posted a video, in another thread, where at least 2 congressmen called out Director Dettelbach for userping that specific power from them (Congress) Here is a second video, [www.youtube.com] where the congressman flat out tells Dettelbach he (I assume meaning the BATFE) does not have the authority to reclassify (redefine) a pistol as a SBR. At @ 3:16 Dettelbach flat out lies because the BATFE routinely succesfully prosecutes people for "constructive possession" If you have the parts to build something restricted or illegal, you are guilty, even if it is not assembled. So, just removing the brace from the pistol still makes it a SBR in the prosecutorial eyes of the BATFE.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2023 11:31PM by Smote.

Don't worry. This court will rule in your favor, and purely 100% merely coincidentally with the opinons of the folks who have given them vacations, covered their loans, and bought their properties.

Quote
Smote

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote
I'm not debating that at all. But Congress wrote muddled law perhaps, as is their right I suppose. But that is no excuse for the EPA seeing a hole in the laws, and filling them on their own authority, not by the authority of Congress.

Agencies are created by Congress with authority delegated by both Congress and the executive. They do not have their own authority.

They have to go through a public process to promulgate regulations and to ensure that those regulations accord with their legislative mandate.

They literally cannot do what you say they do.

And where is the BATFE"s mandate to redefine what a "machine gun" and "short barreled rifle" is? There is NOT one.

Good opportunity for you to learn basic civics:
[www.atf.gov]

---

I am very familiar with CFRs. I have one of the beige books on my bookcase that I can see from here.

The 5th Circuit says the ATF exceeded its authority. [reason.com]

"The decision defends the separation of powers and the rule of law against an attempt to prohibit firearm accessories by administrative fiat."

"After that massacre, the 5th Circuit notes, "public pressure to ban bump stocks was tremendous," prompting two bills aimed at doing so. But then-President Donald Trump said new legislation was not necessary because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) could impose a ban by administrative fiat. That maneuver involved classifying rifles equipped with bump stocks as machine guns, which federal law defines as weapons that "automatically" fire more than one round "by a single function of the trigger." The definition also covers parts that convert a firearm into a machine gun."

"After Trump demanded a ban, the ATF suddenly decided that "non-mechanical" bump stocks were illegal after all. "

"If ATF could change the scope of criminal liability by issuing a regulation—free from the taxing obligations of bicameralism and presentment—the Executive could wield power that our Constitution reserves to the Legislature."

"That phenomenon, Gorsuch noted, extends beyond this particular rule. "These days it sometimes seems agencies change their statutory interpretations almost as often as elections change administrations," he wrote. "How, in all this, can ordinary citizens be expected to keep up—required not only to conform their conduct to the fairest reading of the law they might expect from a neutral judge, but forced to guess whether the statute will be declared ambiguous; to guess again whether the agency's initial interpretation of the law will be declared 'reasonable'; and to guess again whether a later and opposing agency interpretation will also be held 'reasonable'? And why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?"

Quote
Smote
"That phenomenon, Gorsuch noted...

Can you provide a citation from someone with a credible knowledge of the law?

---

Quote
Acer
Don't worry. This court will rule in your favor, and purely 100% merely coincidentally with the opinons of the folks who have given them vacations, covered their loans, and bought their properties.

Is it your contention, that every judge who sides with the plaintiffs, from county judges, all the way up to the Supreme Court justices, are bought and paid for?

13 of the 16 judge en banc panel in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals say bump stocks are not machineguns. Are those 13 bought and paid for too? [www.npr.org] "The full appeals court Friday sided with opponents of the ATF rule. They had argued that the trigger itself functions multiple times when a bump stock is used, so therefore bump stock weapons do not qualify as machine guns under federal law. They point to language in the law that defines a machine gun as one that fires multiple times with a "single function of the trigger." If the BATFE had the authority to change the definition, there wouldn't have even been this ruling.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2023 12:26AM by Smote.

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote
"That phenomenon, Gorsuch noted...

Can you provide a citation from someone with a credible knowledge of the law?

When you sit on the Supreme Court bench, feel free to debate Justice Gorusuch on this. I will gladly sit in the gallery for that.

But when your response is snark, that's the move of a losing conversant.

Quote
Smote

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Smote
"That phenomenon, Gorsuch noted...

Can you provide a citation from someone with a credible knowledge of the law?

When you sit on the Supreme Court bench, feel free to debate Justice Gorusuch on this. I will gladly sit in the gallery for that.

But when your response is snark, that's the move of a losing conversant.

This thread has been about the activist right-wing SCOTUS justices reshaping the law to suit their political agendas and benefactors rather than following their obligation to the Constitution.

Citing one of them to bolster your argument moots your argument.

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2023 12:16AM by Tiangou.