Big Win for Corporations

[j3lademaster]

The court’s decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, which overturns its 1984 finding in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, will cause a sea change in how federal agencies are able to regulate everything from climate change to artificial intelligence to labor and workplace practices. It marks a huge win for corporations, as it will be significantly harder for the government to write rules.

https://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-power-grab-overturns-142750681.html

While we’re all here arguing about woke culture and micro aggressions, corporations were able to undo a precedent not even the corrupt corporate friendly Reagan administration could pull off.

[rmt]

https://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-power-grab-overturns-142750681.html

While weÂ’re all here arguing about woke culture and micro aggressions, corporations were able to undo a precedent not even the corrupt corporate friendly Reagan administration could pull off.

Are you aware that this case was brought because some federal agency was trying to force fishermen to PAY for the salary of federal inspectors who ride on their boats? If some agency wants to inspect my boats, shouldn't they pay for their own inspectors - I must pay for them?

The judicial is one of the 3 branches of government and it's job is to interpret the law - why should their authority/power be undermined by some UNELECTED bureaucrat in some agency?


Lawyers for the fishing companies argued that the court should not only overturn the regulations, but also eliminate the deference afforded to agencies to write such regulations by the court’s precedent in Chevron.

In Chevron, the Supreme Court crafted a doctrine that granted the federal government broad deference to enact regulations without judicial interference. It effectively stated that agencies had the power to enact regulations without having to wait for the courts to weigh in, unless the regulation was an unreasonable interpretation of the underlying law enacted by Congress that delegated regulatory authority to that agency.

But, Roberts wrote, “agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities.”

“Courts do,” he added. “The Framers anticipated that courts would often confront statutory ambiguities and expected that courts would resolve them by exercising independent legal judgment. Chevron gravely erred in concluding that the inquiry is fundamentally different just because an administrative interpretation is in play.”

[rmt]

IOW, big win against the power of the Deep State. Let the courts do their work - not unelected bureaucrats.

[j3lademaster]

This is the problem with this line of thinking. You think because there’s one broken but easily fixable cog(charging fisherman to make inspections on their boats) it’s okay for scotus to rule across the board that corporations can basically pollute with impunity. And the ‘deep state’ are the megacorps, wake up. If you want to find out the truth about something you just follow the money, money can be dirty but it never lies.

[rmt]

This is the problem with this line of thinking. You think because there’s one broken but easily fixable cog(charging fisherman to make inspections on their boats) it’s okay for scotus to rule across the board that corporations can basically pollute with impunity. And the ‘deep state’ are the megacorps, wake up. If you want to find out the truth about something you just follow the money, money can be dirty but it never lies.

The overturning allows the COURTS to decide - NOT the agencies by fiat.

[rmt]

This is the problem with this line of thinking. You think because there’s one broken but easily fixable cog(charging fisherman to make inspections on their boats) it’s okay for scotus to rule across the board that corporations can basically pollute with impunity. And the ‘deep state’ are the megacorps, wake up. If you want to find out the truth about something you just follow the money, money can be dirty but it never lies.

Corporation or INDIVIDUAL doesn't matter. It's for COURTS to INTERPRET - not bureaucrats in agencies.

[rmt]

Our system is one of checks and balances. That it takes (as you say) "one broken but easily fixable cog" case just demonstrates the problem of unchecked power. Who would reign in this type of absurd power grab? (this is akin of IRS charging me for the hours their agent spends auditing me [in addition to my tax dollars already paying his salary])?

The Legislature is already paralyzed because of partisanship and deadlock. Should the Judicial abdicate their clearly outlined duties in the Constitution and allow the Executive branch free reign to not only enforce ONLY THE LAWS THEY WANT TO (like those related to the border) but to interpret the statues that Congress did write? Too much power in the unelected bureaucrats under one branch - imo, this overturn is a good thing.

[SATAN]

:oldlol:

[j3lademaster]

Our system is one of checks and balances. That it takes (as you say) "one broken but easily fixable cog" case just demonstrates the problem of unchecked power. Who would reign in this type of absurd power grab? (this is akin of IRS charging me for the hours their agent spends auditing me [in addition to my tax dollars already paying his salary])?

The Legislature is already paralyzed because of partisanship and deadlock. Should the Judicial abdicate their clearly outlined duties in the Constitution and allow the Executive branch free reign to not only enforce ONLY THE LAWS THEY WANT TO (like those related to the border) but to interpret the statues that Congress did write? Too much power in the unelected bureaucrats under one branch - imo, this overturn is a good thing.

You don't think there needs to be checks and balances in our market as well? Like the govt needs to check corps before they get out of hand? It's not just the politicians, who are obviously run by superpacs. Every major legislation that has been getting passed the past few decades have all been to enrich corporations, including legalized bribery. (https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-bribery-law/#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20on%20Wednesday,th at%20they%20have%20already%20taken.)


The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a federal anti-bribery law does not make it a crime for state and local officials to accept a gratuity for acts that they have already taken.

Are you one of those "Reagan saved the market by legalizing stock buybacks!" people, because that's what corps would do if unregulated anyway? Trickle down?

[rmt]

You don't think there needs to be checks and balances in our market as well? Like the govt needs to check corps before they get out of hand? It's not just the politicians, who are obviously run by superpacs. Every major legislation that has been getting passed the past few decades have all been to enrich corporations, including legalized bribery. (https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-bribery-law/#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20on%20Wednesday,th at%20they%20have%20already%20taken.)



Are you one of those "Reagan saved the market by legalizing stock buybacks!" people, because that's what corps would do if unregulated anyway? Trickle down?

The Legislature WRITES laws. The Executive branch EXECUTES them as written. If there is a dispute (lawsuit), the Judicial INTERPRETS them. The Executive branch has no business interpreting the laws themselves.

[rmt]

Please take a look at Joe Manchin questioning Janet Yellen - where the Executive is completely disregarding the bill AS WRITTEN and just doing what they want to do. The LAWS PASSED reign in the market/people/corporations. The Constitution reigns in the Executive and other branches through checks and balances - there should not be oversized power for any one branch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJxAJODfNqE