Court Rules SEC's Internal Judges Are Unconstitutional (thehill.com) 100
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is denying defendants their constitutional right to a jury trial by putting them in front of its own internal judges. From a report: In a 2-1 ruling, the court ruled for George Jarkesy and Patriot28 LLC, who sued the SEC in 2011 after the agency imposed a $300,000 fine and other punishments in a securities fraud case. Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in the majority opinion that the SEC violated the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial by bringing defendants before in-house judges and allowing the agency to "act as both prosecutor and judge." Congress also unconstitutionally delegated power to the SEC to act as a legislative body, Elrod wrote.
"'We the People' are the fountainhead of all government power. Through the Constitution, the people delegated some of that power to the federal government so that it would protect rights and promote the common good," Elrod said. "But that accountability evaporates if a person or entity other than Congress exercises legislative power." In a dissenting opinion, Judge Eugene Davis disagreed, saying the right to a jury trial did not pertain to administrative proceedings and that the SEC was enforcing laws and statutes in the public interest.
"'We the People' are the fountainhead of all government power. Through the Constitution, the people delegated some of that power to the federal government so that it would protect rights and promote the common good," Elrod said. "But that accountability evaporates if a person or entity other than Congress exercises legislative power." In a dissenting opinion, Judge Eugene Davis disagreed, saying the right to a jury trial did not pertain to administrative proceedings and that the SEC was enforcing laws and statutes in the public interest.
Can't have it both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
saying the right to a jury trial did not pertain to administrative proceedings and that the SEC was enforcing laws and statutes
So which is it? Are we enforcing laws which requires trial by jury, or are we just doing administrative work not based on law?
Re:Can't have it both ways (Score:4, Interesting)
$300,000 fine? That sounds like law requiring a jury trial to me.
"You filled out form Foo instead of form Bar, so your application is denied" is an administrative issue not requiring a jury trial.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> $300,000 fine? That sounds like law requiring a jury trial to me.
Since when does a fine require a jury trial? Or is it the size of the fine that matters... in which case, since when does a fine require a jury trial?
I mean you can be fined for all sorts of things and never get a jury trial. Unless you plan to make traffic tickets and littering fines unconstitutional I don't see the logic here.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Unless you plan to make traffic tickets
You can request a trial by jury for traffic tickets so....
Re:Can't have it both ways (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.nolo.com/legal-enc... [nolo.com]
"In most states, you don't have the right to a jury trial for minor traffic offenses like speeding, running a red light, and distracted driving. So, if you want to fight a traffic ticket, your guilt will likely be decided by a single judge rather than a jury."
=Smidge=
Re: Can't have it both ways (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like common sense to anybody with a brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds foolish to anyone who knows anything of sordid human history, and the abuses governments do.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The right to a jury trial has not been incorporated against the states, so if you're in a state court, you have to rely on the right being established by the state constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you plan to make traffic tickets
You can request a trial by jury for traffic tickets so....
You can request, or you have the right? In states that consider traffic tickets to be criminal offenses you do. In civil cases, it depends on the state, and the 7th amendment doesn't apply to state civil courts. It might need to involve a fine over $500 for example.
It Depends (Score:5, Insightful)
However, you always have the option to appeal any decision taken by the organization to the courts where a judge and jury get to decide whether any such sanction is fair and reasonable given what you agreed to. Perhaps that is what is needed here? Allow the SEC its own internal procedure to levy fines but preserve the right to challenge any such decision in court.
Re:Can't have it both ways (Score:4, Informative)
saying the right to a jury trial did not pertain to administrative proceedings and that the SEC was enforcing laws and statutes
So which is it? Are we enforcing laws which requires trial by jury, or are we just doing administrative work not based on law?
Here's the seventh amendment, which the court based its opinion on.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Now you have to define suits at common law.
https://law.justia.com/constit... [justia.com]
Omission of provision for a jury has been upheld in a number of other cases on the ground that the suit in question was not a suit at common law within the meaning of the Amendment, or that the issues raised were not peculiarly legal in their nature.
Now we have to go dumpster diving through all those cases, and I'd love to but I have to get back to work :(
Re: (Score:1)
REMIND you that the Constitution grants to Congress the power to create bodies and confirm officers thereof to administer the law. ADMINISTER.
Fraud is always unlawful and acts which precipitate or enable most certainly CAN be subject to administrative punishment.
Just ask the IRS.
Maybe this is a good thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Maybe this is a good thing... (Score:1)
If I get a traffic citation,
In many jurisdictions, that's an administrative judgement as well. No jury.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Maybe this is a good thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
If I get a traffic citation, I still get to appear before a judge and plead my case.
That is almost always an administrative proceeding.
How a "judge" is appointed to a traffic court can vary by jurisdiction, and you have no right to a jury.
This is really a hit against the way the US does regulation, in general.
Where previously you may have only gotten a fine in an administrative proceeding, you will now have to face criminal charges.
I'm not sure this is a victory for anyone.
Re:So if you're wondering why it's a bad thing (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's worse than that. This is an attempt to lay a framework for the Supreme Court to rule all administrative body rulemaking unconstitutional. Say goodbye to the FCC, FTC, EPA, etc. All federal delegation of rulemaking is going to get ended. Congress will have to pass every rule through both houses or nothing gets done. A disaster, because Congress is too slow to do anything about anything.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It means say good by to consent decrees and other such soft handed approaches to rulekeeping.
If someone is running afoul of a "regulation" (now, a law) you pull them in front of a jury, and you convict them. There's no nudging them in the right direction, which is basically how 99% of all enforcement actions in the Federal Government take place. So this will stifle free enterprise, not free it.
Re: So if you're wondering why it's a bad thing (Score:2)
Not seeing that.
The sec makes rules, enforces them, and industry has no path for appeal. Until this ruling.
If the sec has to defend rulings in court, they will have to demonstrate that the rules were clear, and the offenders willfully broke them. Today industry often has to guess what the rules even are.
To win in an independent court the SEC will have to show that the rules are reasonable interpretations of legislation, understood by industry, and rooted in legislation. (Not made up, not just popped into ex
Re: (Score:2)
The sec makes rules, enforces them, and industry has no path for appeal. Until this ruling.
That's not quite true.
They can refuse to pay the fine. They can sue for the fine (like they did here).
This happens all the time. This is just the first time the process has been called unconstitutional (in the 70 years of jurisprudence upholding it)
Re:So if you're wondering why it's a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this bad? We have three branches of government, all have to follow the same laws and I don't see how regulators charged within the guidelines of the law and constitution are hamstrung here. It just sets aside the ability of the SEC to have its own extrajudicial proceedings.
Because those three branches (Score:2)
That becomes virtually impossible to do when you're allowing your court system to bog everything down. Yes when someone is accused of a crime then they need to and must have a trial. But nobody's accusing these people crimes.
This is like demanding a jury trial because you built an
Re: (Score:2)
This is like demanding a jury trial because you built an unsafe structure in your backyard.
No, this is like a random government bureaucrat claiming that you built an unsafe structure in your back yard, and you disagree with his opinion. Instead of him just being able to go to his "administrative law judge" buddy inside the same department of the same agency under the same management structure, and have them automatically rule against you; you can at least plead your case to a real judge who is at least not directly affiliated with either party in the disagreement and can make some semblance of a
Re: (Score:2)
We don't engage the criminal justice system for every little thing that human beings do. A bunch of very rich assholes want to have that happen because they can abuse that system to
Re:Because those three branches (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes I build things all the time, and apply for permits, and spend a shitload of time of arguing with the often-incompetent people in that office.
It usually ends up being cheaper (and more importantly less hassle) to just do what the inspector says, even when that inspector is completely wrong. That is exactly the problem with the system as it is. The administrative agencies have purposefully made it so difficult to disagree with them that only "very rich assholes", as you put it, have the time and money available to take on these kinds of fights. The rest of us just have to bend over and take whatever they are handing out with no realistic alternatives. This is not a fair or reasonable system that respects due process in any way, shape or form. Opening up a path to the courts to address regulatory over-reach is a good thing for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
The goal of the inspector is not helping have more buildings. It is not even having them safer. But rather "finding infractions".
I remember reading one low income landlord's strange story. They claimed to have so many issues with inspectors, they would purposefully "break" a small thing (like remove batteries from fire alarms), so that the inspector would have something to complain about.
This reminds me of placing some cash and a broken laptop in the living room, so that burglars would not trash your place.
Re: (Score:1)
This is like demanding a jury trial because you built an unsafe structure in your backyard. You get to keep the structure up as long as you want because you know damn well that your city doesn't have enough money to drag you and everyone like you into court. And you know they don't have that money because you bribed the city council to cut funding.
Cut the crap if we can fund enough SEC administrators to be in everyones business we can fund enough justices to babysit people on jury duty. Most of these cases could probably be discharged in a hour..
US constitution tried to keep the government SMALL (Score:2)
Since the Civil War and especially since the New Deal it has got completely out of hand - not least because the block on legislation provided by needing everything to go through Congress got 'lost' (which being translated means ignored by people wanting to advance their own agenda).
A good compromise on this might be to move back to requiring everything to go through Congress - but end the Senate filibuster.
Re: (Score:2)
For one thing, this is the first time in the entire history of the US any Court has ever ruled that a Civil fine gets the same protections a Criminal case gets. So your claim that the SEC is not following the law is supported by these two Judges, and no other Judges in the history of the nation.
How novel is this? The entire government, from the IRS to the guys who decide whether your Asylum application is correct are administrative law Judges within the Executive branch. Under this ruling all of those cases
Re: (Score:2)
From the ruling in the majority opinion:
in the majority opinion that the SEC violated the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial by bringing defendants before in-house judges and allowing the agency to “act as both prosecutor and judge.”
also
“‘We the People’ are the fountainhead of all government power. Through the Constitution, the people delegated some of that power to the federal government so that it would protect rights and promote the common good, But that accountability evaporates if a person or entity other than Congress exercises legislative power.”
So to me this ruling deals just with the SEC since they create rules for regulation of markets. They do it all the time under the US under the 1934 Securties and Exchange Commission Act. [sec.gov]
As for immigration courts, the IRS tax courts et al. I don't believe those administrative courts are at risk here. Specifically SCOTUS has also ruled many times on the immigration courts and processes affirming their existence and right to deport individuals. [cis.org]
"The Supreme Court has held that deportation is not punishment, but rather an administrative procedure whereby an illegal alien is returned to his homeland. The alien has not been deprived of life, liberty, or property, so many constitutional protections do not apply.
Re: (Score:2)
So to me this ruling deals just with the SEC since they create rules for regulation of markets.
That's a distinction without a difference. Just as computer code has to be compiled before it actually runs, the 'code' Congress writes in the statute has to be applied to the real world by a bureaucracy. Therefore, the IRS, the SEC, and the INS are all creating rules for their internal court systems all the time. That's how it works.
If you don't believe that this is a ridiculously radical precedent consider this: the SEC has been doing this, with administrative judges, since the early 1930s. the last scare
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is transition to judicial rule. The SCOTUS would be forbidding congress from delegating to the executive, with no constitutional or precedential basis for that prohibition. Congress can un-delegate anything at any moment by making a new law. THAT is balance of powers. If the court had the power to forbid congress from delegating, that would have been set out in the constitution. (And it certainly has come up before 2022.)
There is also a side problem that a non-delegation rule would cause thin
Re: (Score:1)
So, how did the US manage to run before we got over regulated?
I think it is a good thing to reign in all of t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However it can be turned on it's head because good for the goose, good for the gander and all that jazz cabbage. Literally all that jazz cabbage and narcotics. That means DEA rules / FDA rules / CBP rules think pretty much every agency of government, will have their powers stripped. More than that, this lays the ground work for stripping states of power. They don't realize it, but the conservatives just cut their own throats. Regulation will become nigh impossible, meaning they can't dictate anything to liberal cities either. Not only that, but by dismantling the FCC / FTC / EPA and so on, they're also undercutting all the protections built into those agencies. You think some red state areas (think Duke energy coal ash spill) are messes now? Just wait, it's going to get far more entertaining in regards to lawsuits. Yeah, it's shiatty, but look for the ways to turn it back on them overall. Examine every angle, and start with what those agencies protected businesses from regarding consumers. Everything is a tradeoff... no more OSHA means no more pointing to OSHA compliance as a method of protection from lawsuits. No more EPA means you can dump whatever you want, but also means there is nothing stating acceptable levels of anything so you can be sued for whatever anyone wants to sue you over... and you can't cite the government because those rules were illegal. Sorry Mr. GPS manufacturer and John Deere, there is nobody to stop someone from blasting out GPS to provide Intarwebs a la Lightsquared. Oh looky loo, there's nobody to enforce spectrum at all so feel free to blast on 101.1 FM. Yeah, they'll start trying to pass laws to fill in the gaps. People should realize most of those agencies took 50+ years to come up with the rules. A lot can happen while they try to fill in gaps. My personal favorite will be when pilots, who initially will cheer this, start to see cities shutting down small airports. They'll whine like little biatches that the (BIG MEAN) FAA didn't protect (airport-name) from (city) and it was bulldozed into houses or something.
You are assuming that a state can not pass a bill that has all the regulations in it. States are very good at passing laws.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah its almost like omnibus bills are not a thing. Those 50 years of built up regs. Congress can pass one law that is basically - "Bill to enact FCC regulations and penalties prescribed in 2022 FCC ${document}" and be done with it. It would provide opportunity for congress people to add some amendments like 'excepting provision 3.22.1.2' which my constituents all hate. You know actually democracy rather than bureaucracy.
Re: (Score:1)
With judges now in place from the lowest levels to the most high, it's now all starting to come together...
Your water may get fouled up but fear not citizen, your lord and savior Nestle is here to save yo
Re: So if you're wondering why it's a bad thing (Score:3)
Which is how it should be. Congress should be making the law, not unelected civil servants.
Regulations are just a form of law.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people think this decision bad? Listen to yourselves!
Government gets to take $300,000 from you without a trial because it mouths words "administrative". If this were a movie, you'd laugh at the comically evil of it.
Believe it or not, courts can be pretty good seeing through cover stories and looking at actual actions: government mouthing an infraction, then deciding you must give a tremendous penalty because of it. Declaring it administrative, or a civil, not criminal, fine does not make it so. W
Re: So if you're wondering why it's a bad thing (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The SEC is funded by congress.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised you didn't use the Chewbacca Defense [youtube.com] instead of the Underpants Gnomes logic! [youtube.com]
Re: So if you're wondering why it's a bad thing (Score:4, Interesting)
by cutting funding to those prosecutors
That's not necessarily bad. Not enough prosecutors? The evidence (company assets) remain impounded until the case finally comes to trial. If the charge involves a felony, company executives get a GPS ankle bracelet and house arrest. Or maybe they wait in a cell.
I predict that funding will magically appear.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
by cutting funding to those prosecutors
That's not necessarily bad. Not enough prosecutors? The evidence (company assets) remain impounded until the case finally comes to trial. If the charge involves a felony, company executives get a GPS ankle bracelet and house arrest. Or maybe they wait in a cell.
I predict that funding will magically appear.
"I'll take 'how many constitutional rights can I violate in one sentence' for $1000, Alex."
"Not necessarily bad" my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take 'how many constitutional rights can I violate in one sentence' for $1000, Alex.
Civil forfeiture [wikipedia.org] is already a thing here. Already upheld by the US Supreme Court.
Or were you referring to the different protections applicable to the wealthy but not the proloteriat?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice deflection. You were advocating for locking people up without trial and holding their property hostage because the government couldn't be bothered to prosecute. The pivot to "but muh civil forfeiture" (a fucking abomination, FWIW) doesn't change what you said. Suggesting this is two standards for rich and poor (note, the rich are also subject to civil forfeiture---they just have a better chance of succeeding in defending their property against legalized theft) is icing on the cake.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
because the government couldn't be bothered to prosecute
Because the prosecution was defunded and couldn't bring the case to trial quickly (please try to follow the thread).
Holding someone over for trial is done in cases where flight from prosecution is possible. For poor people, that means laying low in some ghetto. For the wealthy, it means a long vacation in your Swiss ski chalet. Or Tel Aviv.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the prosecution was defunded and couldn't bring the case to trial quickly (please try to follow the thread).
Holding someone over for trial is done in cases where flight from prosecution is possible. For poor people, that means laying low in some ghetto. For the wealthy, it means a long vacation in your Swiss ski chalet. Or Tel Aviv.
"Government can't be assed to fund prosecutors" isn't "this one secret trick that attorneys hate." "Sorry, we don't have enough prosecutors/courtrooms/etc" is not a problem that should be left to the accused to resolve or deal with the consequences of. And yes, I hold the same view about the poor people who sit in jail for far longer than the sentences they would be subject to if convicted because the government allows its prosecutors to push their trial dates back and holds them on unreasonable bail.
Our
Re: (Score:2)
"I'll take 'how many constitutional rights can I violate in one sentence' for $1000, Alex."
Where in the constitution do you have a right to complete freedom until your trial? Try going on a murder rampage and telling the police "Nah I'm not coming to jail, have your lawyer talk to my lawyer and I'll see you in front of a jury".
Forfeiting assets and limiting movement is literally the first thing which happens in basically every case. Ever heard of the term "bail"?
Re: (Score:2)
Knock that strawman down baby, woohoo.
I did not suggest the constitution offered the right to complete freedom until trial, nor did I advocate for such. GP is suggesting that "it's not necessarily bad" that the government would not fund prosecutors because people he doesn't like (and their assets) could then be seized indefinitely "waiting" for trial.
Re: (Score:2)
What we actually have is a Constitutional failure to provide for a speedy trial under the 6th amendment.
Also, bail is not an asset forfeiture. It's a refundable payment to say you will show up in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
the Statin drugs that are keeping you alive
Statins help some, but they're over-prescribed:
Conclusion This literature-based meta-analysis did not find evidence for the benefit of statin therapy on all-cause mortality [jamanetwork.com] in a high-risk primary prevention set-up.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly its an administrative matter, a civil matter.. so if its over more than $20 you have Constitutional right to a jury. The government should not be free to impose fines greater than $20 and doge the defendants right to trial and jury - not ever!
How general is this? (Score:2)
In the executive branch of the federal government and of the states, a great many proceedings are held with an administrative law judge. Would this ruling totally end that practice?
Re: (Score:2)
In the executive branch of the federal government and of the states, a great many proceedings are held with an administrative law judge. Would this ruling totally end that practice?
That was my first thought, as well. Quite a few Executive Branch agencies have ALJs for enforcing regulations. Getting rid of them is going to bog down the court system even more.
US Tax Court .. (Score:2)
Wow, it took a while for this to happen (Score:2)
It took decades before someone challenged administrative courts.
Simple fix: add a jury.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it was the kangaroo court called the 5th circuit, the one most often found in violation with the constitution and most often corrected by the supreme court.
Re: (Score:2)
Seventh amendment is for fines, so no (also only for federal law, so California can keep its kangaroo courts too).
Re: (Score:2)
Completly defranged teh SEC (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Love it. Just wanted to pop in for a bit of celebratory nagging.
What was it they always said about nothing to hide and doing nothing wrong?
Looks like the SEC was *BREAKING THE LAW*. Never forget that when they come acting all puffed chest to you. THEY BREAK LAWS.
Can't even honor the thing they are supposed to protect. They literally are the evil they were there to protect.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
they're bypassing the legislative process by creating what are functionally laws
No, the ability to determine the details of regulations within a specific scope (a.k.a. executing the law) was delegated to the agencies by explicit acts of Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now its time to scrap Chevron entirely. Congress should not have the ability to delegate its authority there is nothing in the constitution that grants them that; the very fact that Congress was given the explicit authority to establish courts suggests that if there was any intent they should have the ability to create little special use legislatures that would have been mentioned.
None of these agency should be able to make their own rules - not FTC, FAA, FCC, SEC, FDA, CDC, etc none of them. They re
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't choose whether to delegate then it's not really under your authority, is it? There's really no chance that Congress members know enough about whether to pass individual regulations - especially across such a wide range of subject matter.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the IRS? They got lots of rules and fines too... are those unconstitutional as well?
Now do IRS Tax and FISA Courts! (Score:3)
Thank you for this ruling!
Now get rid of the IRS Tax courts and the FISA Courts.
Re: (Score:2)
And the ATF...
to the Supreme Court! (Score:5, Interesting)
I like this ruling quite a bit, and even if SCOTUS doesn't take it up, then by default this ruling stands, which reigns in the power of the bureaucracy over everyone.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Let's hope for a 9-0 vote (Score:2)
A clear, united SCOTUS supporting this ruling would be amazing. If you are right, this is what we should expect!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, no. The current SCOTUS firmly believe GOP over the constitution. They will twist the words of the constitution to whatever absurd notions they need to to defend their preconceived notions. They have been specifically chosen for this cognitive bias.
Re: (Score:2)
And your opinion of the SCOTUS isn't really accurate; that's a media portrayal. This recent leak around this abortion case is one of the worst things to happen to the Supreme Court because it wasn't a final opinion; just a draft and one up for debate at that. It's framing the SCOTUS as one thing when in fact it was in the middle of it's process, still i
Re: (Score:2)
At the heart of this issue is a section of the Dodd-Frank Act, which gave the SEC the right to set rules (legislate), enforce those rules (executive), and adjudicate those rules (judiciary).
At the heart of this issue is the modern Federal Government. Administrative Law Judges have existed across multiple agencies since 1946.
So yeah, assuming the justices see it as Congress effectively creating a separate judiciary and legislative branch for this aspect of society, then yes I see SCOTUS as shutting that down.
Well this structure has been in place and considered constitutional for almost 80 years so it's underlying constitutionality shouldn't be in doubt... However the current SCOTUS is a bit of a joke so who knows how this will turn out.
Re: (Score:1)
"It's been legal for this long, so it's Constitutional" isn't a good argument. That's the same argument used by the Democrats to allow slavery, Jim Crow, and plenty of other nasty policies against people of color in the past.
What's to say that they weren't Constitutional but upon re-evaluation of the situation and their existence, that people realize "Oh, yeah... No, that's not right, let's fix that"?
Sorry, but "We've done it like this forever now, why change it" is not a defense of un-Constitutional action
Re: (Score:2)
"It's been legal for this long, so it's Constitutional" isn't a good argument. That's the same argument used by the Democrats to allow slavery, Jim Crow, and plenty of other nasty policies against people of color in the past.
Ah yes, the whole "lets pretend the parties never switched places on racism" argument.
What's to say that they weren't Constitutional but upon re-evaluation of the situation and their existence, that people realize "Oh, yeah... No, that's not right, let's fix that"?
Sorry, but "We've done it like this forever now, why change it" is not a defense of un-Constitutional actions by the government.
Precedents can certainly change, and they should when they're unjust. But the first job of the legal system is to be somewhat consistent. A lower court blowing up a major government agency is hardly providing a stable foundation to build on.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah yes, the whole "lets pretend the parties never switched places on racism" argument.
Ah yes, the debunked "southern strategy" argument. The parties never switched. Quit lying. Pick up a history book. Learn to debate. You are ascribing something I was not saying in the slightest. I was historically correct, The established facts are that the Dems historically have been more racist and have stood against civil rights more than any other party, a civil war, their voting and legislative records prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the whole "lets pretend the parties never switched places on racism" argument.
Ah yes, the debunked "southern strategy" argument. The parties never switched.
Debunked? Since when is it debunked? And on what evidence are you basing the claim that the parties never switched?
Quit lying. Pick up a history book. Learn to debate. You are ascribing something I was not saying in the slightest.
What were you not saying in the slightest? That the parties never switched places on racism? Given that you responded by literally arguing for that statement I think I accurately characterized your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
And can we please do 'arbitration' next? :P
Re: (Score:2)
I hope this gets challenged and goes to the Supreme Court. There is a bureaucracy power creep where the Executive branch kind of bleeds into the Legislative branch, where unelected officials can set "rules" and "regulations" and "administrative proceedings" that have penalties associated with them that look an awful lot like laws; to close for my personal opinion. The SEC is one in particular that can very quickly become authoritarian.
I like this ruling quite a bit, and even if SCOTUS doesn't take it up, then by default this ruling stands, which reigns in the power of the bureaucracy over everyone.
Legislative bodies set the guidelines for the regulation, agencies fill in the details.
If you instead insist that legislative bodies write each individual regulation then regulations will be out date by decades and when they do get updated they'll be authored by corporate lobbyists.
The legislative branch granted certain rule making powers to federal agencies because it's the only way to make a system that functions.
In other words (Score:2, Troll)
The con artist and his corrupt cabal will be able to rip people off at will and not have to worry about being penalized because it will take so long for any enforcement action to take place.
Sounds like a Republican wet dream. Unlimited corruption without consequences.
Congress and SEC failed (Score:3)
Congress didn't tell SEC when to use ALJ vs a jury trial, and the SEC was just making it up. Executive agencies' job it to enforce the law not make the law.
The court did right in telling Congress to be more precise and complete in its laws.
The SEC should have gone back to Congress for clarification. Until then, they should have let the defendant decide the judge/jury question.
Be Careful What You Wish For (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a sneaking suspicion that this is only going to make people charged with securities fraud (hi Elon) more noteworthy. Before they would go before a sleepy administrative court with the SEC, now they're going to be in much more public federal courts where the press is more likely to take notice.
Forced arbitration (Score:2)
We enter into "forced arbitration agreements" all the time, such as when you install just about any software and click "yes" to agree to the fine print. Many employers insert forced arbitration clauses into their employment agreements. In some particularly egregious cases, cases of rape were sent to arbitration through these agreements. https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
It seems to me that this ruling should apply to forced arbitration, for the same reasons the court cited for applying it to the SEC.
SEC a court? (Score:2)
My school principal is a dictator (Score:2)
I want to go before a judge each time I'm late.
Judges can put you in prison (Score:2)
Be careful what you wish for.