Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS: sponsored by Harlan Crow

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Chevron deference has been dead since the Supreme Court started using their major questions doctrine, that was made up out of thin air, to shoot down Democratic executive branch initiatives. West Virginia v. EPA and Biden v. Nebraska are two examples.

    Comment


    • #62
      I know, I'm just mourning ahead.
      I gotta little bit of smoke and a whole lotta wine...

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by psych View Post
        major questions doctrine
        Short version: If enforcing an agency rule would hurt a corporation's profit margin or a Republican's re-election bid, then Congress has to pass legislation codifying said rule.

        Comment


        • #64
          Which is not likely to happen.
          "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
          -aparch

          "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
          -INCH

          Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
          -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Swansong View Post
            They're just going to rope-a-dope us along until we tune it out and they say yes, presidents do have full immunity, aren't they? And completely obliterate Chevron deference.
            Biden should just move the entire 101st to outside maralago and the SCOTUS justices homes to kind of hammer the point why this is ****ing insane.
            Code:
            As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
            College Hockey 6       College Football 0
            BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
            Originally posted by SanTropez
            May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
            Originally posted by bigblue_dl
            I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
            Originally posted by Kepler
            When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
            He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

            Comment


            • #66
              Supreme Court upholds federal law banning domestic abusers to have guns. 8-1. I’ll let you guess who dissented.
              Uncle Mickey: July 23, 1950-July 22, 2003

              WRPI, 91.5 FM...usually color commentary.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by jericho View Post
                Supreme Court upholds federal law banning domestic abusers to have guns. 8-1. I’ll let you guess who dissented.
                Can just never rely on KBJ!
                If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by jericho View Post
                  Supreme Court upholds federal law banning domestic abusers to have guns. 8-1. I’ll let you guess who dissented.
                  I mean, if I had to listen to my wife continually b*tch about January 6th from the comfort of my donor paid for RV while on vacation, I'd want to make sure I retain my gun rights after my actions too.
                  “Demolish the bridges behind you… then there is no choice but to build again.”

                  Live Radio from 100.3

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by jericho View Post
                    Supreme Court upholds federal law banning domestic abusers to have guns. 8-1. I’ll let you guess who dissented.
                    Where in the 2nd does it even mention domestic violence??
                    a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      I'm telling you. They're dumping the reasonable ones now to butter us up for the destruction of EMTALA, the final nail in the Chevron coffin, a decision that "interfering with a government activity" (or however the plain text reads) doesn't actually mean that and wipe out hundreds of January 6th convictions, and finally an absurd baby-splitting decision that some Presidents have immunity, specifically former presidents currently on trial for insurrection and stealing classified documents.


                      EMTALA should be 9-0 and the decision should simply site the Supremacy Clause.
                      Immunity should be 9-0 and should simply say "LOL GTFO, Traitor".


                      But they won't. Because at least 3, if not straight up 4, members of this SCOTUS are "conclusion first, reasoning whenever" *******s.
                      I gotta little bit of smoke and a whole lotta wine...

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Swansong View Post
                        Because at least 3, if not straight up 4, members of this SCOTUS are "conclusion first, reasoning whenever" *******s.
                        It's 5. Roberts sometimes tries to be a justice. Each of the other cons has a particular itch they will scratch sometime to break from the hard right agenda. But there's a 5-person majority on this Court that's going to jam the shiv of its ideology into the law's face, and they just don't care. None of them should be on the Court.
                        Cornell University
                        National Champion 1967, 1970
                        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Alito has been absent from court for two days now?

                          did he leave his home on Juneteenth, see a minority, and go back inside for six more weeks?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Swansong View Post
                            I'm telling you. They're dumping the reasonable ones now to butter us up for the destruction of EMTALA, the final nail in the Chevron coffin, a decision that "interfering with a government activity" (or however the plain text reads) doesn't actually mean that and wipe out hundreds of January 6th convictions, and finally an absurd baby-splitting decision that some Presidents have immunity, specifically former presidents currently on trial for insurrection and stealing classified documents.


                            EMTALA should be 9-0 and the decision should simply site the Supremacy Clause.
                            Immunity should be 9-0 and should simply say "LOL GTFO, Traitor".


                            But they won't. Because at least 3, if not straight up 4, members of this SCOTUS are "conclusion first, reasoning whenever" *******s.
                            Yeah, I'm terribly worried about Chevron. I just don't understand how a government can operate at the federal level. I know that's the point, but like, it's pretty goddamn important!! I don't see how this wouldn't also render EOs moot at the same time. I thought the whole point of things like agency actions and EOs is that they fill in the blanks between the lines of the CFR.

                            Going back to the "All red shirts are now illegal" example that uno gave a few years ago. Without Chevron, how do we determine what shirts are red? Every law needs to say something like "Pantone Red 5" is now illegal and there's no way to get around it if they start making shirts that are Pantone Red 5-A?

                            Or am I completely missing something here?
                            Code:
                            As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
                            College Hockey 6       College Football 0
                            BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
                            Originally posted by SanTropez
                            May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
                            Originally posted by bigblue_dl
                            I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
                            Originally posted by Kepler
                            When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
                            He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post

                              Yeah, I'm terribly worried about Chevron. I just don't understand how a government can operate at the federal level. I know that's the point, but like, it's pretty goddamn important!! I don't see how this wouldn't also render EOs moot at the same time. I thought the whole point of things like agency actions and EOs is that they fill in the blanks between the lines of the CFR.

                              Going back to the "All red shirts are now illegal" example that uno gave a few years ago. Without Chevron, how do we determine what shirts are red? Every law needs to say something like "Pantone Red 5" is now illegal and there's no way to get around it if they start making shirts that are Pantone Red 5-A?

                              Or am I completely missing something here?
                              I’m terrified of Chevron. I live in one of the bluest states and your employer has poisoned most of my family already. We get rid of chevron and I cannot imagine what non blue states will look like - we’ll see kids with 3 arms being born in our lifetime

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Americans don't have fundamental right to have spouses admitted, justices say. WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled Friday that U.S. citizens don't have a fundamental right to have their noncitizen spouses admitted to the U.S.
                                What in the ****ing hell is this BS?
                                **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                                Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                                Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X