Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
29 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Day one of Biden’s second term this fuckhead needs to be fired. 

I was about to say a SCOTUS justice can't be fired, and then I remember Bitch McConnell stonewalled him, so he's not on the court.  Fuck McConnell.

Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I was about to say a SCOTUS justice can't be fired, and then I remember Bitch McConnell stonewalled him, so he's not on the court.  Fuck McConnell.

Would we have noticed if he were? 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Would we have noticed if he were? 

I struggle to imagine how he could have been as middle of the road as he would have wanted to be.

Posted
43 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Day one of Biden’s second term this fuckhead needs to be fired. 

I'd like to see @Brisketexan as AG just so his Mexican ass could start kicking in white supremacist doors eating an Allsups burrito saying...

Surprise Threaten GIF

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I’m waiting for twice and gator to show up and tell us there really isn’t anything Garland could do.

Without provoking a constitutional crisis, no.  And with a court that would establish very bad precedent on the separation of powers issue.

There is a longer game here.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Without provoking a constitutional crisis, no.  And with a court that would establish very bad precedent on the separation of powers issue.

There is a longer game here.

Look around man, we’re in the fucking middle of a constitutional crisis already.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is a longer game here.

That's like saying letting mussolini or hitler take power was fine because there was a longer game to resolve the conflict. Sometimes we WANT to avoid the longer game becauses of the costs required to play it. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Look around man, we’re in the fucking middle of a constitutional crisis already.

Want to let this Court decide what Clarence can and cannot be prosecuted for?  It can always get worse.

Posted
14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Want to let this Court decide what Clarence can and cannot be prosecuted for?  It can always get worse.

I fail to see the distinction between not prosecuting and immunity from prosecution in this instance. At least forcing the court to rule will be a bigger spotlight on corruption and may in fact drive votes to reform the court (add justices). 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I fail to see the distinction between not prosecuting and immunity from prosecution in this instance. At least forcing the court to rule will be a bigger spotlight on corruption and may in fact drive votes to reform the court (add justices). 

That's possible, yes.  Something much worse is also possible.

Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's possible, yes.  Something much worse is also possible.

What is the worse outcome? Him not being prosecuted? If you're concerned about precedent, don't be. It means nothing to this Court and any precedent from this Court will need to be thrown away anyway. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What is the worse outcome? Him not being prosecuted? If you're concerned about precedent, don't be. It means nothing to this Court and any precedent from this Court will need to be thrown away anyway. 

Well, good thing this Court has created the roadmap for tossing precedents.  😬😬

I can't say you or brisket are wrong.  But I think there are two views on it, upon which reasonable minds can differ.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted

Until the earth has been rendered uninhabitable, things can always get worse. The fact that things can always get worse cannot be the reason not to try to make things better.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
Posted
12 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I struggle to imagine how he could have been as middle of the road as he would have wanted to be.

He might've broken records for the number of concurrences, in part.

Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Without provoking a constitutional crisis, no.  And with a court that would establish very bad precedent on the separation of powers issue.

There is a longer game here.

Right on cue.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 7/12/2024 at 6:33 PM, DDD Dad said:

This is not acceptable posting behavior. Choose your words more wisely in the future. 

Sorry I forgot how elevated the discourse here is

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 4
Posted
Just now, tx 3 putt said:

What’s the R’s Argument for not wanting an ethics code ?

 

Ummmm....the argument is "we don't have ethics, so fuck you?"  I don't think they're worried about being subtle these days.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

What’s the R’s Argument for not wanting an ethics code ?

 

They’re above the law and binding them to a code of ethics means they can’t do whatever they want without punishment 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

What’s the R’s Argument for not wanting an ethics code ?

 

business ethics GIF
some version of what Eric’s response in this situation 

 

Edited by hookemATL
He pulls out a gun and Steve buscemi shoots him in the ass
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)

Wouldn't term limits require a constitutional amendment? I'd prefer he support adding seats to the court, which Congress can do, and if he announces it now and wins the election, he can claim it as a mandate from the voters.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Wouldn't term limits require a constitutional amendment? I'd prefer he support adding seats to the court, which Congress can do, and if he announces it now and wins the election, he can claim it as a mandate from the voters.

I am pretty sure it would, at least when all the talk about packing the court came up before there were articles that said term limits would require an amendment. 

Edited by hornbri
Posted

What about calling on reforms to change the types of cases that they can see? I’ve read about that somewhere and don’t know enough about it speak further on it. Basically reduces their ability to hear monumental cases. Is an option like that available?

Posted
26 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

What about calling on reforms to change the types of cases that they can see? I’ve read about that somewhere and don’t know enough about it speak further on it. Basically reduces their ability to hear monumental cases. Is an option like that available?

Yeah, that's a possibility, as well as moving them to the basement of the EEOC.

Posted
3 hours ago, 'stache said:

Wouldn't term limits require a constitutional amendment? I'd prefer he support adding seats to the court, which Congress can do, and if he announces it now and wins the election, he can claim it as a mandate from the voters.


if Trump wins, he’s adding seats by executive order. The constitution is worthless 

Posted
19 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that's a possibility, as well as moving them to the basement of the EEOC.

Yes. As you probably know the Supreme Court just met in the U.S. Capitol building until 1935 when the courthouse was built. 

And Congress has broad authority to regulate the jurisdiction of the Court, but probably cannot divest it of jurisdiction over constitutional issues.

Posted
25 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Great. I’m sure congress in an election year will get right on that.

Especially with the Republican Party expecting to be in power in all 3 branches of government after.

And maybe I get to have a 3 way with Katy Perry and Sydney Sweeney. 

🤷🏼‍♂️

Chuckle, the Republican Party will not be in control of all 3 branches of government. Stop with that foolishness.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Thoughts on Loper/Chevron.

First, as far as I can tell, the following are the basic facts of the initial case:  The Magnuson-Stevens Act gave the NOAA the power to regulate the fishing industry and the herring fishing industry in particular in this instance.  For approximately the last 30 years, NOAA has required monitors on certain herring fishing vessels as they are authorized to do under the MSA.  The regulations specifically called for boats of a certain size to both have monitors on board and also pay for them.  In the Loper case, the size of the vessels was under the specific size regulation and, therefore, there was ambiguity on who would pay for the monitors.  In a somewhat agreed upon settlement, the smaller herring fishing vessels agreed to have monitors on board and NOAA agreed to pay for them.  This existed for many years.  Recently NOAA had severe funding issues and, as a result, chose to impose the cost of monitors on the Loper fishing vessels.   The lower courts looked at the case and applied the two part Chevron test which first determines if there is ambiguity in the language of the Act, and, if so, then they must decide if the actions imposed by the regulating agency (in this case NOAA) were "reasonable". 

In the Loper case, it appears that the lower courts agreed the language regarding who must pay for the monitoring was ambiguous and then further found that the NOAA did have the authority to impose the costs on Loper based on Chevron.  What I think the issue is here is whether or not the lower courts actually considered whether the specific action by NOAA was "reasonable" or not but rather simply deferred that NOAA had the authority to do it based on Chevron.   What I think SCOTUS did was then tell the lower courts that based on the Administrative Procedure Act they had to make a specific ruling on the "reasonableness".

Am I correct that as a result of Chevron, that the courts have pretty much always sided with the regulatory agencies post Chevron?  Are there any cases where a lower court actually ruled against a regulatory agency in a case of this type?  Has "reasonable" essentially been changed to "egregious" meaning the courts are almost always going to side with the regulatory agencies unless the regulations are so over the top that no one could reasonably agreee to them.

At first glance, it does seem that Loper has a really good case.  Initially, both parties agreed that the cost of the monitors should not be borne by Loper as evidenced by the fact that NOAA did, in fact, pay for the monitors for many years.  Then when NOAA ran out of money they changed the rules in the middle of the game.  This is especially hard on the smaller vessels as the cost of a monitor has much more impact on their bottom line than it does on larger vessels that catch much more fish. 

It is sort of on point in our current bizarro world that liberals are the ones decrying this decision as it certainly appears to be a case where the little guy is going to get squeezed out by the big guys with help from a government agency.  Historically the democrats have looked after the little guys and the republicans have favored the bigger guys.

On a much broader level, I can certainly see why Chevron was reversed.  The issue I see is that, by nature, most of the regulatory agencies and  thus there regulations are impacted by the policy and political whims of whichever administration is currently in power.   And whichever regime is in power, whoever donates the most money to the party will likely get their way with regards to the regulations that affect them.   I think Chevron titled the fairness scales too far in the direction of the agencies and the direction of whichever party has current control.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Thoughts on Loper/Chevron.

First, as far as I can tell, the following are the basic facts of the initial case:  The Magnuson-Stevens Act gave the NOAA the power to regulate the fishing industry and the herring fishing industry in particular in this instance.  For approximately the last 30 years, NOAA has required monitors on certain herring fishing vessels as they are authorized to do under the MSA.  The regulations specifically called for boats of a certain size to both have monitors on board and also pay for them.  In the Loper case, the size of the vessels was under the specific size regulation and, therefore, there was ambiguity on who would pay for the monitors.  In a somewhat agreed upon settlement, the smaller herring fishing vessels agreed to have monitors on board and NOAA agreed to pay for them.  This existed for many years.  Recently NOAA had severe funding issues and, as a result, chose to impose the cost of monitors on the Loper fishing vessels.   The lower courts looked at the case and applied the two part Chevron test which first determines if there is ambiguity in the language of the Act, and, if so, then they must decide if the actions imposed by the regulating agency (in this case NOAA) were "reasonable". 

In the Loper case, it appears that the lower courts agreed the language regarding who must pay for the monitoring was ambiguous and then further found that the NOAA did have the authority to impose the costs on Loper based on Chevron.  What I think the issue is here is whether or not the lower courts actually considered whether the specific action by NOAA was "reasonable" or not but rather simply deferred that NOAA had the authority to do it based on Chevron.   What I think SCOTUS did was then tell the lower courts that based on the Administrative Procedure Act they had to make a specific ruling on the "reasonableness".

Am I correct that as a result of Chevron, that the courts have pretty much always sided with the regulatory agencies post Chevron?  Are there any cases where a lower court actually ruled against a regulatory agency in a case of this type?  Has "reasonable" essentially been changed to "egregious" meaning the courts are almost always going to side with the regulatory agencies unless the regulations are so over the top that no one could reasonably agreee to them.

At first glance, it does seem that Loper has a really good case.  Initially, both parties agreed that the cost of the monitors should not be borne by Loper as evidenced by the fact that NOAA did, in fact, pay for the monitors for many years.  Then when NOAA ran out of money they changed the rules in the middle of the game.  This is especially hard on the smaller vessels as the cost of a monitor has much more impact on their bottom line than it does on larger vessels that catch much more fish. 

It is sort of on point in our current bizarro world that liberals are the ones decrying this decision as it certainly appears to be a case where the little guy is going to get squeezed out by the big guys with help from a government agency.  Historically the democrats have looked after the little guys and the republicans have favored the bigger guys.

On a much broader level, I can certainly see why Chevron was reversed.  The issue I see is that, by nature, most of the regulatory agencies and  thus there regulations are impacted by the policy and political whims of whichever administration is currently in power.   And whichever regime is in power, whoever donates the most money to the party will likely get their way with regards to the regulations that affect them.   I think Chevron titled the fairness scales too far in the direction of the agencies and the direction of whichever party has current control.

 

Your last paragraph sums it up.  Where there is vagueness or ambiguity in the statute enabling the regulations, the agency's interpretation usually, but not always, prevailed.  Which allowed the agency more leeway to enact "partisan" or "administration-specific" regulations.

The term for that under Chevron was deference to the agency interpretation.  Deference, not acquiescence.  Between determining if a statute is vague or ambiguous and what the hell is deference, there was a lot of Calvinball going on.  Calvinball will continue, but a bit less tilted toward the agency and the administration dictating its policies.

In this realm, the Major Questions doctrine, where the courts get to say Congress just can't delegate that issue to an agency because reasons is the big one.  That's the one where agency expertise is actually endangered in favor of congressional incompetence and gridlock.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Satchel said:

Chuckle, the Republican Party will not be in control of all 3 branches of government. Stop with that foolishness.

In this simulation foolishness is kinda the rule unfortunately (but i pray you’re right)

Posted
4 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Thoughts on Loper/Chevron.

First, as far as I can tell, the following are the basic facts of the initial case:  The Magnuson-Stevens Act gave the NOAA the power to regulate the fishing industry and the herring fishing industry in particular in this instance.  For approximately the last 30 years, NOAA has required monitors on certain herring fishing vessels as they are authorized to do under the MSA.  The regulations specifically called for boats of a certain size to both have monitors on board and also pay for them.  In the Loper case, the size of the vessels was under the specific size regulation and, therefore, there was ambiguity on who would pay for the monitors.  In a somewhat agreed upon settlement, the smaller herring fishing vessels agreed to have monitors on board and NOAA agreed to pay for them.  This existed for many years.  Recently NOAA had severe funding issues and, as a result, chose to impose the cost of monitors on the Loper fishing vessels.   The lower courts looked at the case and applied the two part Chevron test which first determines if there is ambiguity in the language of the Act, and, if so, then they must decide if the actions imposed by the regulating agency (in this case NOAA) were "reasonable". 

In the Loper case, it appears that the lower courts agreed the language regarding who must pay for the monitoring was ambiguous and then further found that the NOAA did have the authority to impose the costs on Loper based on Chevron.  What I think the issue is here is whether or not the lower courts actually considered whether the specific action by NOAA was "reasonable" or not but rather simply deferred that NOAA had the authority to do it based on Chevron.   What I think SCOTUS did was then tell the lower courts that based on the Administrative Procedure Act they had to make a specific ruling on the "reasonableness".

Am I correct that as a result of Chevron, that the courts have pretty much always sided with the regulatory agencies post Chevron?  Are there any cases where a lower court actually ruled against a regulatory agency in a case of this type?  Has "reasonable" essentially been changed to "egregious" meaning the courts are almost always going to side with the regulatory agencies unless the regulations are so over the top that no one could reasonably agreee to them.

At first glance, it does seem that Loper has a really good case.  Initially, both parties agreed that the cost of the monitors should not be borne by Loper as evidenced by the fact that NOAA did, in fact, pay for the monitors for many years.  Then when NOAA ran out of money they changed the rules in the middle of the game.  This is especially hard on the smaller vessels as the cost of a monitor has much more impact on their bottom line than it does on larger vessels that catch much more fish. 

It is sort of on point in our current bizarro world that liberals are the ones decrying this decision as it certainly appears to be a case where the little guy is going to get squeezed out by the big guys with help from a government agency.  Historically the democrats have looked after the little guys and the republicans have favored the bigger guys.

On a much broader level, I can certainly see why Chevron was reversed.  The issue I see is that, by nature, most of the regulatory agencies and  thus there regulations are impacted by the policy and political whims of whichever administration is currently in power.   And whichever regime is in power, whoever donates the most money to the party will likely get their way with regards to the regulations that affect them.   I think Chevron titled the fairness scales too far in the direction of the agencies and the direction of whichever party has current control.

 

 

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Your last paragraph sums it up.  Where there is vagueness or ambiguity in the statute enabling the regulations, the agency's interpretation usually, but not always, prevailed.  Which allowed the agency more leeway to enact "partisan" or "administration-specific" regulations.

The term for that under Chevron was deference to the agency interpretation.  Deference, not acquiescence.  Between determining if a statute is vague or ambiguous and what the hell is deference, there was a lot of Calvinball going on.  Calvinball will continue, but a bit less tilted toward the agency and the administration dictating its policies.

In this realm, the Major Questions doctrine, where the courts get to say Congress just can't delegate that issue to an agency because reasons is the big one.  That's the one where agency expertise is actually endangered in favor of congressional incompetence and gridlock.

So,  what your kinda saying is that Loper is kinda like promissory estoppel,  and the major questions doctrine is horseshit?

Because that's probably the most accurate description



×
×
  • Create New...