Two good SCOTUS rulings

[oldag]

Chevron deference precedent reversed. This is big and far-reaching.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...dmark-case-deciding-fate-administrative-state

DOJ misapplication of statute against Jan. 6 protestor slapped down.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...participant-challenged-obstruction-conviction

 

[G O B]

Overreach is a Democrat's life blood. No need to pass legislation when you can do it by bureaucratic fiat. Thank God this has been overturned.

 

[MountainGirl]

Re the J6 ruling, I hope this also tosses the same charge levied against the other 300 people targeted by the DOJ.

FJB, F them all.

 

[Gordo]

Wonder how far back Chevron Deference goes ?
Bump stocks was one, but that has already been thrown out.
Didn't the ATF approve the FRT, before the changed their mind ?
What else ?

 

[MountainGirl]

Wonder how far back Chevron Deference goes ?
Bump stocks was one, but that has already been thrown out.
Didn't the ATF approve the FRT, before the changed their mind ?
What else ?

The link said it was established in the 80's.


Todd&joyce posted this in the other thread

SCOTUS has been chipping away at Chevron almost since Day 1.

That it is gone does not prevent an activist executive branch from just doing it and waiting for the challenge in court. What this case does is remove Chevron as a formal guideline to follow in any federal court.

 

[Johnny Diamond]

Wonder how far back Chevron Deference goes ?
Bump stocks was one, but that has already been thrown out.
Didn't the ATF approve the FRT, before the changed their mind ?
What else ?

It goes back to the Valdez oil disaster in Alaska, chevron oil denied responsibility and won hence the term Chevron deference.
.


Believe I misunderstood your point.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

DOJ misapplication of statute against Jan. 6 protestor slapped down.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...participant-challenged-obstruction-conviction

This ruling also invalidates a couple of Jack Smith's charges against Trump. May have an effect on the other charges as well.

You don't have to watch the whole video, it's talked about in the first few minutes:

 

[MountainGirl]

This ruling also invalidates a couple of Jack Smith's charges against Trump. May have an effect on the other charges as well.

You don't have to watch the whole video, it's talked about in the first few minutes:

The constipated pushback on that out already is that he (they) were trying to stop the counting of electoral votes, and the votes were on paper, thus meeting the 'document' test, so the charges still apply.

Pffft.

 

[easy rider]

The constipated pushback on that out already is that he (they) were trying to stop the counting of electoral votes, and the votes were on paper, thus meeting the 'document' test, so the charges still apply.

Pffft.

It was talk, a question, and that's what SCOTUS said couldn't be argued. There was no attempt to actual document change, otherwise anyone can be arrested and charged on an idea.

 

[Moonpie]

The Libs are already tearing their hair out about the Chevron ruling.
Bald libs is always a good thing.

 

[MountainGirl]

It was talk, a question, and that's what SCOTUS said couldn't be argued. There was no attempt to actual document change, otherwise anyone can be arrested and charged on an idea.

Right! I was just showing what the Libs lame argument against the ruling is.

 

[wiredgeorge]

Presidential immunity is next up in the batter's box. Supposed to be Monday as the SCOTUS extended to July 3 before they close this session out.

 

[Army 1911]

On the immunity thing, they will find a way to split the baby in half.

 

[MountainGirl]

On the immunity thing, they will find a way to split the baby in half.

Probably. My guess is it'll divide somewhere between personal criminal (shoot the neighbor) and national actions (nuke Iran).

 

[G O B]

FJB

This administration has already deliberately flaunted the will of SCOTUS on college loan deferments. What makes anyone believe that Democrats give a rat's ass about the law.

 

[MountainGirl]

FJB

This administration has already deliberately flaunted the will of SCOTUS on college loan deferments. What makes anyone believe that Democrats give a rat's ass about the law.

IMO, what makes anyone believe - is that it's hard to fathom others gleefully embracing behavior that we find abhorrent.

 

[easy rider]

Yet, here we are.

 

[Renegade]

It goes back to the Valdez oil disaster in Alaska, chevron oil denied responsibility and won hence the term Chevron deference.
.

You are funny. I am surprised you did not bring up Waterworld as the origin. Or Tractor Tires.

 

[Gordo]

The Libs are already tearing their hair out about the Chevron ruling.
Bald libs is always a good thing.

That's OK, Newsom will just stick it back on with grease.

 

[easy rider]

It goes back to the Valdez oil disaster in Alaska, chevron oil denied responsibility and won hence the term Chevron deference.
.


Believe I misunderstood your point.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Um, the Chevron defense was a ruling that happened in 1984. The Exxon Valdez disaster was in 1989. I should know, because I was shocked that that was the ship I worked on in Portland (Swan Island in1988) before the disaster. I remember saying "Running aground is NOT a welders fault!"