Supreme Court Ruling Kneecaps Federal Regulators (theverge.com) 372
The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a long-standing legal doctrine in the US, making a transformative ruling that could hamper federal agencies' ability to regulate all kinds of industry. The Verge adds: Six Republican-appointed justices voted to overturn the doctrine, called Chevron deference, a decision that could affect everything from pollution limits to consumer protections in the US.
Chevron deference allows courts to defer to federal agencies when there are disputes over how to interpret ambiguous language in legislation passed by Congress. That's supposed to lead to more informed decisions by leaning on expertise within those agencies. By overturning the Chevron doctrine, the conservative-dominated SCOTUS decided that judges ought to make the call instead of agency experts.
Chevron deference allows courts to defer to federal agencies when there are disputes over how to interpret ambiguous language in legislation passed by Congress. That's supposed to lead to more informed decisions by leaning on expertise within those agencies. By overturning the Chevron doctrine, the conservative-dominated SCOTUS decided that judges ought to make the call instead of agency experts.
I dub this the "Auctioneer Court." (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their rulings have nothing to do with law, and are just straight bribery auctions to business interests.
Dude, it's not bribery, it's a gratuity. And that's entirely 100% legal because the supreme court said it is. They have no conflicts of interest because that's only for bribes. Clarence Thomas was just getting a tip (which is the most American thing ever, you tip everyone for everything) for being just such a wonderful judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, it's not bribery, it's a gratuity.
Damn tipping culture is spreading everywhere!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How about, "Why do desperate captive workers with no other options & no escape, i.e. on ships, beg for tips when it's their only source of income?"
Are you trying to persuade me that this is a good way to do things?
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, it's not bribery, it's a gratuity. And that's entirely 100% legal because the supreme court said it is.
Actually, the Court only ruled that the statute charged "applies only to quid-pro-quo acts of bribery", not after-the-fact "gratuities" -- even though common sense says they're the same thing. They also noted that the government is free to regulate either more strictly, but must use new/different statutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't Let the Politics Bind You! (Score:4, Insightful)
So, an agency can force you to pay an observer, daily, to confirm that you are in compliance, without being given that authority by law?
Re:Don't Let the Politics Bind You! (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say Chevron deference is a clear mistake.
Agencies are part of the Executive branch, and the constitution delegates Interpretation of the law to the Judicial branch.
Separation of powers is Not working as intended if the executive branch gets to decide BOTH what the ambiguous law means when they are passing the executive regulations AND a second time when there's a court challenge arguing the regulation to be Outside what the law allows..
Our constitutional system is meant to have Judges making the decision. Although the agencies can still argue for their interpretation -- The onus should at least be on them to make an argument which is legally persuasive based on the statute giving authority for that regulation.
Re:Don't Let the Politics Bind You! (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say that while I do not like this ruling, Congress, the critters that write these bills, in theory, should not make them so ambiguous. the problem with making all bills unambiguous is this:
I write a bill saying murder is wrong. That is ambiguous, is murder wrong when you are defending YOUR life against an attacker? So we rewrite the bill to remove the unambiguity, now it says, murder is wrong, but in cases of self defense, it is justified... Okay, well that is ambiguous too, right? What if the threat comes from a quadriplegic 4 year old with terminal cancer? Is that a credible threat? We can go on and on with this sort of thing and at the end of the day, that would eventually make the law unreadable because it would be 550,000 pages just for that one thing, murder. And then someone would find a way to murder someone with a spaghetti noodle and point that the law did not specifically state, with a spaghetti noodle, therefore the law was still ambiguous.
Congress writes the laws to be somewhat ambiguous so that the laws are flexible enough to cover change over time and new developments. They are intended to be subject to change over time.
Anyway, I do not like that this congress is overturning everything that the Republicans want overturned. This sets a precedent that if we get a SCOTUS that is more liberal, they will then overturn everything this SCOTUS did and so one, ad infinitum, until the end of time or the end of the USA, whichever comes first.
Prior to this SCOTUS, one SCOTUS overturning another's rulings was a rare occurrence. Now it seems to be business as usual
Re: (Score:3)
Murder is by definition the unlawful killing of another. Defending your own life is presumptively lawful. Perhaps you meant killing is wrong?
Re:Don't Let the Politics Bind You! (Score:5, Interesting)
You seem to have forgotten the Congressional Review Act, which every administrative regulation is subject to upon being posted to the Federal Register.
Essentially:
1. Congress passes the law.
2. The Executive agency which the new legislation effects then drafts rules and regulations, clarifying the legislative law.
3. Congress can then choose to disagree with the regulation, and have a vote to toss it and tell the administration to try again. Or they can do nothing and let the regulation stand.
4. Someone who is regulated by the rule is then able to sue in federal court and get judicial review of both the legislative law, and the regulatory regime applied under it.
That's how co-equal government works under our separation of powers. Or, at least it did until this morning.
Re: (Score:3)
The real snag here is that congress is deliberately making laws open to interpretation. They are deliberately not being clear in their intent. Congress WANTS the president to have leeway here, especially if the president is from their own party. Of course, being shortsighted they sometimes forget that the president is sometimes from a different party :-)
Congress CAN fix this, if they want to. Right now the current congress wants to to literally nothing but hold mock hearings, leaving it to future congre
Re: (Score:2)
The answer to this is for Congress to quadruple the number of judges in the lower court system over a period of 10 years and at the very least double the number of circuits.
Re: Don't Let the Politics Bind You! (Score:3)
Dumbest of all possible takes there. If they didn't want it to do anything they wouldn't have given it any powers.
Re: (Score:3)
Looks like it. Chevron deference sure streamlined government. With that you don't need a legislature or courts, for that matter. Isn't that ever so much more efficient when we put our boots on the citizen's necks?
{O,o}
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Their rulings have nothing to do with law
If you read the majority decision, it's pretty clearly rooted in law. The Chevron deference result in Chevron v. NRDC (1984) conflicts with the Administrative Procedure Act (1946).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a very positive ruling for the citizenry to prevent the non-elected bureaucracies to legislate and essentially "make law" where the US congress did not make.
These agencies are not answerable to the citizens....like elected officials are.
This is how the US was set up to run.
We've been living with the agencies (a lot of them three letter ones) running roughshod over citizens.
The latest example being the pistol brace case, where the ATF, did actions like for years issued lett
Re:I dub this the "Auctioneer Court." (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember that private health insurance companies can kick you off their plans the moment you actually get sick too. Freedom!
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be confused about the impact of this ruling.
The Affordable Care Act (aka, Obamacare) prevents discrimination based on pre existing conditions and was passed by Congress and signed into law. It would not be impacted by this because our elected officials did what they were supposed to.
The Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act would keep lead and PFAS out of your water if properly enforced.
There are so many laws about heavy metals in the food supply that I won't
Re: (Score:3)
My favorite leopards at my face moment is how conservatives cheered at the "at will" employment states and how your employer can fire you for any reason. Well guess what? Covid hits and your employer says you have to be vaccinated to have a job. So take the vaccine or find a new job. DeSantis had to hurry up and pass a new law saying you couldn't be fired for refusing a vaccine.
Re:I dub this the "Auctioneer Court." (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll probably say that it stifles business & innovation. I say I quite like not having cancer.
Re: (Score:3)
And if you do get cancer you don't have to declare bankruptcy from hospital bills.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> These agencies are not answerable to the citizens..
Neither are the people who do all the bullshit that needs to be regulated. Did you vote for the board of directors responsible for that refinery that caused the toxic spill requiring the whole town to be evacuated? Did you vote on the ballot initiative to allow the textile mill to dump their waste into the river your drinking water comes from? When is the neighbor who burns his trash at the edge of your property so the smoke covers your home instead of
Re:I dub this the "Auctioneer Court." (Score:4, Insightful)
to prevent the non-elected bureaucracies to legislate and essentially "make law" where the US congress did not make.
That's why the Congressional Review Act is a thing. If Congress doesn't like the drafted rules and regulations being added to the Federal Register by the executive agency charged by Congress to execute the legislation passed by Congress, Congress has the ability to call those regulations up for a vote. And if they vote the regulation down, then it's gone.
Did you forget about all of that?
Did the Supreme Court?
Why is the judiciary now the regulatory body instead of the regulators as intended by Congress when passing legislation that grants regulatory power to executive agencies?
Why is it a good thing that Boeing is now going to be regulated by federal judges that know absolutely nothing about aerospace engineering, rather than aerospace engineers at the FAA?
Why is it a good thing that coal power plants are going to have their environmental impact regulated by a federal judge that knows nothing of ecology, rather than environmental scientists at the EPA?
Re: (Score:3)
Did you forget about all of that?
He didn't. It's just not guaranteed to give him the result he wants, so it's gotta be replaced by something that will.
Did the Supreme Court?
They didn't. They were paid to ignore it.
Why is the judiciary now the regulatory body instead of the regulators as intended by Congress when passing legislation that grants regulatory power to executive agencies?
Because Conservatives want to remake the US in their own image by any means necessary. Don't forget that the reason this court exists is because of Fucking Mich deciding not to do his job for two years, then four years later dropping everything to get his job done at the last second. (He's also on the record saying he'd do it all again, if given th
Re:I dub this the "Auctioneer Court." (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a very positive ruling for the citizenry to prevent the non-elected bureaucracies to legislate and essentially "make law" where the US congress did not make.
There's nothing positive about wanting laws which require knowledge as basis in science to be made by politicians with law degrees and driven by money. Having congress "make law" with fine detail is a great way of fucking America. There's a reason their laws are broad and defer to experts. Not every fucking thing needs voting on. Sometimes the idiots with a polling pencil should be told to shit down and shut the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope they remember their "free market principles" the next time they're stepping onto a Boeing 737-MAX, knowing that the Supreme Court feels that the commercial aviation industry is better regulated by a federal judge who also has to know about and clarify environmental regulations, mineral extraction regulations, medical and medicine regulations, etc. than the career aerospace engineers at the FAA who do nothing but aerospace engineering regulation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And you don't think it has room to get worse?
Whoops, your little glib quip wasn't nearly as clever as you thought it was.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps. However that also implies that all drugs should be legal and any person could manufacture and sell such drugs (after all, your body, your choice and in this case there's not even a hint of another life involved). Similarly with suicide and doctor (or anyone) assisted suicide. However, the courts - liberal and conservative alike - have not seen fit to declare, for example, meth production, marketing, possession, and consum
Kneecaps Federal Regulators (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Instead now we get unelected lifetime-appointed federal judges making it all up later, without the benefit of subject matter expertise employed by the regulatory agency.
That's certainly better, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
REF: https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
you say, "The federal bureaucracy is totally out of control legislating via making up the rules after the fact." would you rather we made up the rules before the fact?.
"And congress needs to start doing their job and not just passing laws like "does good stuff bill 0000"" yep, that is 100% corre
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And congress needs to start doing their job and not just passing laws like "does good stuff bill 0000"
Spoiler. They won't. This is literally the thing that all of you keep missing. Congress IS NOT... GOING TO... CHANGE.
After this case, a law to give some money to oil wells to be dug will pass, but since it said nothing about who and where, all those funds will be denied by some judges. And everyone will scream Judicial Overreach, because now Congress can make the Judges the bad guy.
Because of this. If a law doesn't get down to the finest detail, it's now up for a lawsuit. And Congress is not known for
Re: (Score:3)
We just won't have anyone with any kind of knowledge doing anything for the public
Good. I've spent many decades watching them fuck things up worse (FDA, FAA, FCC, VA, BLM, etc... you name it, they SUCK) with little or no accountability. They shouldn't even be there and the federal government ought to be about 2% of the size it is right now. Every single one of them needs to be fired, as far as I'm concerned but ignoring and frustrating them is a good first step.
Y'all are so full of shit. I'm glad I'm in my fucking 60s and don't have much longer on this planet. Everyone seems so dead set to run this fucking place into the ground. I hope you all enjoy your hellhole you made for yourselves.
Well you being an old fuck, wouldn't the blame for the hellhole fall on your shoulders more than those you leave behind, Mr. Tro
Eventually this will cause an economic crash (Score:2, Insightful)
Also we're all hostages. There's that too. That's what "too big to fail" really means. It means the 1% have a gun to our heads.
I get Stockholm syndrome but you'd think actually seeing the gun used like in 2008 would've snapped us out of it. No such luck.
Re: Eventually this will cause an economic crash (Score:2)
The deregulation that allowed the banks to tangle up so much happened through legislative action: repealing the Depression-era legislation that mandated firewalls between retail lenders and investment banks.
Some of that firewall got put back up with further legislative action.
TLDR: you don't know what you're talking about; you feel a vague danger and your lizard brain has identified an enemy in the "millionaires and billionaires" and a strongman to protect you in the form of unbridled federal executive auth
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, big part of the conditions that allowed 2008 to occur and there's plenty of blame to go around on that one, the bill that repealed it was devised by Republicans, a fair number of Democrats voted yes and Bill Clinton signed it.
Glass–Steagall legislation [wikipedia.org]
Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act [slashdot.org]
The supreme Court is exercising veto power (Score:2)
This is what I hate about conservatives. Things change and you guys pretend they didn't change because you don't like change. The supreme Court was previously just barely held in check. That's over now and they are now a completely partisan body that does the bidding of radical extremists.
Deregulation? (Score:2)
When you deregulate business they take risks.
In Chevron v. NRDC, the case was about how the Regan EPA was loosening pollution restrictions by having the agency redefine what the word "source" meant. SCOTUS at the time found that federal agencies do have the power to reinterpret law. Chevron won that case.
Today's ruling reverts that.
So if Chevron resulted in looser regulations, and today's ruling undoes that, how are things now necessarily worse for regulating? It's shifting the power of regulatory interpretation away from the executive branch, which w
I think you're misreading it (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes back in the day when Chevron won that case it benefited them but things changed and the ruling over time has resulted in stricter regulation and more safety regulations around businesses
This is the supreme Court essentially vetoing law again. They've been doing that a lot lately where they will take on cases whe
Re: (Score:2)
Been there done that got the T-shirt (Score:2)
The courts have long since gutted the USDA and FDA. Today the inspectors at food plants, notably chicken plants are all just employees of the food processor. You can imagine how much time they get to inspect. There have been several outbreaks already.
For drugs it's a little different. We moved all the manufacturing to India. Theoretical The FDA can oversee that but in practice it would cause an international incident if they tried. So as a result any drugs you're
Re: Eventually this will cause an economic crash (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now with the bat s$%t crazy Trillion dollar deficits the US has already collapsed financially. But most don't see it or refuse to see it.
Agencies are built by incumbent administrations (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh sweet! So instead of regulations being decided by political appointees that are in that position as long as the politician who appointed them wishes them to be, we now get regulations being decided by political appointees that are in lifetime appointments and accountable to nobody except a feckless Congress that can't gather enough votes to rename a post office, much less impeach a federal judge.
That's certainly better!
A win for democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A win for democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
NONE of these agencies have unchecked power! They have oversight and can be destroyed or changed drastically with a simple majority vote; before that, they can impeach top people and the president can fire people plus the appointment process... etc.
The court has no place getting into stuff it has been corruptly getting involved with; such as taking cases without standing but not to such an extreme they don't reject too obviously contrived cases... Also, some cases were fraudulent but they still ran with it
Re:A win for democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
We have law makers for a reason (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't make it a law, either because you can't get the votes or because expressing your dreams isn't feasible in legislative form, it's fake and deserves no regard. Unwinding the unelected administrative state is a pure good.
Everything about this post is wrong (Score:3)
Laws are often written specifically so that Congress can delegate authority to experts in the field. Remember experts? Remember when we hear used to like experts? In the before times...
The goal of corporations and fascists is to bog down the inner workings of government so that they can seize control of it. In America we have a
A Wake-up Call to Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't like the Supreme Court ruling? Pressure Congress to do their jobs well and not write ambiguous laws. Problem solved.
Re:A Wake-up Call to Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's impossible to craft laws in such a way that they cover every single case.
That's a feature, not a bug.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing prevents the agency from drafting updates to lists of regulated items, handing them off to a friendly Congress-critter or Senator to put on the floor as quick one-page legislative item, or even take it to some committee they are on make it a rider on something entirely unrelated.
If Congress can't or won't do that, and people keep electing representatives that can't or won't do that. It tells you the public does not want these agencies caring on their mission any longer or at least does not care tha
Re:A Wake-up Call to Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
> If Congress can't or won't do that, and people keep electing representatives that can't or won't do that. It tells you the public does not want these agencies caring on their mission any longer or at least does not care that the do. Democracy in action!
It's astounding to me that you can be both so outspoken about government corruption and cronyism to decry the actions of federal agencies doing what they were chartered to do, as they are permitted under law, and in nearly the same breath also express full faith in Congress's ability to enact the will of the people and somehow NOT be corrupt cronies themselves.
To say nothing of the fact that your childishly optimistic strategy works both ways: if it's that easy to get the laws changed to, say, let the EPA intervene in an ecological disaster not specifically covered by existing law, it's just as easy to get the law changed to prevent them from stopping it. Who do you really think will win in this situation?
Also, praising the decision of unelected officials to curtail the ability of other unelected officials to do their jobs is some weapons-grade cognitive dissonance.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Pressure the Senate and take control of the Senate to deal with this CORRUPT court!
They make up BS excuses for their activist agenda that is bought and payed for... either to them or to the system which appointed only those who'd do their bidding.
Plus their religious fanaticism is put more and more on display outside their BS rulings.
Bias much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Chevron deference allows courts to defer to federal agencies when there are disputes over how to interpret ambiguous language in legislation passed by Congress. That's supposed to lead to more informed decisions by leaning on expertise within those agencies. By overturning the Chevron doctrine, the conservative-dominated SCOTUS decided that judges ought to make the call instead of agency experts.
In other words, if the language of a law is ambiguous, a court gets to decide instead of some current group of political bureaucrats.
Um ... okay? That's supposed to be scary?
Re: (Score:2)
Plot twist (Score:2, Troll)
there are tons of judges who are political bureaucrats. They're also not elected. See Cannon in FLA for the justice department equivalent of regulatory capture.
Re: (Score:3)
The FBI has explicitly admitted to tampering with evidence for a photo op. Yet you are arguing Cannon is in the wrong? Interesting.
Re: (Score:3)
Um ... okay? That's supposed to be scary?
Do you want a lifetime political appointee with a law degree and zero accountability writing and reviewing aerospace regulations, or career aerospace engineers with accreditation in the field of study working at the FAA?
Now do cars and highways. And clean water / air. And food safety. And medicines and health care. And nuclear power via the NRC. Electrical code. Bridges and tunnels. Financial markets.
Yeah, it's at least a little scary.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer to this is to expand court capacity, by at least four given the federal caseload, and at least double the number of circuits if not closer to triple.
Accountable government or unaccountable government (Score:2, Insightful)
As usual, the reason we can't have nice things is that the people in charge of said agencies often don't view their job as holding the line against government infringement because good intentions, but rather view their jobs as
a) I'm From The Government And I'm Here To Help
b) An exercise in career advancement by way of demonstrating the ability to accumulate power and influence
c) A cushy gig handed out in exchange for past and future loyalty
People being people, none of the above is unexpected. And the way we
Not good (Score:5, Insightful)
Expect a ton of lawsuits and jurisdiction shopping now.
So if the law says “you cannot pollute the river” you can dump a bunch of some toxic compound and then find yourself a judge who has zero chemistry expertise to agree that your toxic substance is not pollution, you can get away with it?
With this new ruling you can defy EPA policy if you know you can be in a favorable judge’s jurisdiction. It will become like how patent trolls converge on the Eastern District of Texas to get favorable rulings.
Re: (Score:2)
Expect a ton of lawsuits and jurisdiction shopping now.
So if the law says “you cannot pollute the river” you can dump a bunch of some toxic compound and then find yourself a judge who has zero chemistry expertise to agree that your toxic substance is not pollution, you can get away with it?
Not just that, you need to get some ambiguity in a regulation cleared up? Take it to court, pay lots of legal expenses, watch the issue get appealed, pay more legal expenses, repeat the appeals process all the way up to SCOTUS, and at the pace the justice system works this will take years upon yeas and meanwhile you get to ... pay even more legal expenses ...
can this affect the TSA? (Score:4, Interesting)
TSA seems to make up a bunch of rules for themselves. could this abuse finally be curtailed?
Re: (Score:2)
Get ready to be poisoned (Score:3)
Might as well sell the FDA to Boeing and watch the airline industry go back to the era of biplanes. Your car could catch fire at any moment because of faulty parts, or you could fill up the tank and have an oil change and have a ruined engine by the time you're out of the station.
This is the end of the rule of law. The orderly application of law is based on precedence, and the fascist majority on the (former) Supreme Court hates precedent. They pick and choose whatever the hell they want from any era of history and jam their deranged retrograde version of 17th law into the formerly functioning America.
Up next: enforced state Christianity, burning witches at the stake, indentured servitude, trial by fire, and limiting the vote to white Christian men who own a sufficient property. (Don't be surprised if all the Slashdot morons are outraged when it turns out they aren't rich enough to vote.)
Re: (Score:2)
The end of regulation is like the end of electricity. Be prepared to eat s
Re: (Score:2)
This just in, the rule of law didn't exist in America prior to 1984.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure the FDA and EPA were created well before 1984, and they had some significant function before then, so clearly they didn't need Chevron to function.
What am I missing?
Time to open up some businesses (Score:2)
I'm looking for partners to open up some businesses. I'm thinking steel plant, chemical manufacturer, or waste disposal. These will be opened upwind of golf courses and luxury house developments.
Please reply in the comments if you are interested in starting such companies. No experience needed. We'll learn as we go.
Re:Good Riddance! (Score:4, Insightful)
If an agency is interpreting legislation in a way that Congress doesn't like, there's an easy way for them to fix it: amend the law. Which they can also do if they don't like a court's interpretation. Why detour through the courts at all?
Re:Good Riddance! (Score:5, Informative)
At the bottom are people like me, GS - series people. We are hired based on the job description, asking us about our politics is illegal... Well, unless the orange-haired one wins the next popularity contest anyway. We are trained in a bunch of laws that we are beholden to, much more than the average citizen, I am not talking about the regulations derived from those laws, though that is true as well, but actual laws... For example, one law says that, as a person with a particular clearance, I am beholden to a bunch of laws even after I leave service, regular citizens are not beholden to these laws, they apply only to persons who have clearances. Chelsea Manning, for example, broke about a dozen of those laws, and for those reasons was adjudicated against, found guilty and sent to prison, then later, for political reasons, she was pardoned by the next president that came along.
We are ruled by the Senior Executive Service. These august people are Hired based upon the executive qualifications and once again, the above disclaimer rings true, asking them about politics, currently, is illegal. They serve to take the dictates of the next higher level and measure them against laws and regulations, then pass them down to the GS types.
And above these SES people are the political appointees. These are the ass kissers of the President, they are picked based on who sucks the Presidents cock best. Usually they have no fucking clue about the laws that each government agency is supposed to work under, hence the need for the SES.
You appear to believe that all of us are the asskissers of the President, this is simply not the case, at the level beneath the appointees we are all just normal Americans with very different politics and very different viewpoints from each other. Of course, as I mentioned above, it appears you would prefer we were all asskissers of the President, just so long as it is the orange one.
The reason why we have a massive federal bureaucracy is multifold, one example/reason is the The Office of the SecDef. That office had about 600 people in it. the SecDef is a political appointee and one of those assclowns decided he needed 600 toadies in his office. Well, then along came Gates! He, as SecDef, expanded that office to over 2000 employees!!!! Why? WTF knows. Maybe he found that having 600 people to kiss his ass meant it wasn't getting kissed quite as much as he would have liked, so he expanded it. Then after he left that office he wrote an essay about how that office should only need about 600 people in it... And tried to pretend as if HE was not responsible for growing that office to over 2000 from the 600 he came into office with.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good Riddance! (Score:4)
Now, if congress changes the laws, that is one thing, but if Trump doesn't like a law and orders us to ignore it, well, good luck with that. Why don't you write Trump a letter and tell him to can my ass and see how well that works for you, huh?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The largest bloat of our federal government is federal agencies taking vaguely worded laws and inventing entire bureaucracies to enforce their arbitrary interpretations of what those laws actually mean.
This is on purpose. When congress doesn't have enough expertise to regulate an industry, it delegates its rule making authority to an agency that can a) hire those experts, and b) respond more quickly to situations or changes in the regulated environment than congress can.
If there is a problem with how the agency is behaving, congress can always revisit their ambit, or pass legislature to override any rule making they don't like .
Re:Good Riddance! (Score:4, Informative)
And basically this changes NOTHING about how what you said works.....EXCEPT:
Rather than the un-elected folks in the executive agencies making "law" themselves....this is thrown back to our elected congress-critters, and the agencies can now hire or using in-house expertise as you described...to make the case to congress as to why a law is needed to be amended or a new law is required.
And this way...those making these changes are once again answerable back to the people.
Re: (Score:3)
and the agencies can now hire or using in-house expertise as you described...to make the case to congress as to why a law is needed to be amended or a new law is required
We used to have Congressional offices that dealt with that. Gingrich got rid of most of them because quite literally he said "I don't need experts to tell me how to pass laws". Your "this doesn't change anything" is incorrect. This absolutely removes the last aspect of experts of a field working within the Government. We now literally have nothing but folks who "think" they know what they are doing passing all the laws that lobbyist tell them to pass.
And this way...those making these changes are once again answerable back to the people
My dude, how are you this blind? You know lobbyist d
Re: (Score:3)
You keep using the word "un-elected" as an insult or a negative, as if public opinion somehow trumps intelligence. Yes we do want un-elected people making decisions especially when they need to be backed by science.
A polling booth does not make an regulation sane or intelligent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you're another commenter that forgot about the Congressional Review Act, which explicitly allows Congress to review and vote on regulations created by the executive under the authority that Congress delegated to them.
If Congress has a problem with the regulations being created under their legislation, they have every ability to call it up for a vote and shitcan it, no judiciary required.
Re:OLD (Score:4, Insightful)
At least Trump can form complete sentences.
Kinda. Like, barely. He can't even seem to remember who he's attacking anymore, and keeps confusing people and places.
Even NPR (National Propaganda Radio, that is) has realized Biden is just plain senile.
He ain't looking so great.
I don't think either choice is really mentally competent to run the country. So you have a choice. Do you want a team backing them that are absolute toadies who will agree and defend literally everything the president says as a matter of almost religion, including the big lie about stolen elections, or the other guys?
The greater of two evils is the greater of two evils. It's worse than the lesser.
Re:OLD (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with you. I would just add that a competant (or semi-competant) evil vs an incompetant ineptitude you would potentially choose the ineptitude and gamble that in a crisis our generals and emergency people could function well vs them having to mutiny vs the evil.
Re:OLD (Score:5, Informative)
Either get off your drugs or get on them. Here is the "stable genius" forming complete sentences [akamaized.net] this past week.
Here he was two years ago [snopes.com] explaining in "complete sentences" how he would help Ukraine fight Russia.
He only speaks at a fourth grade level [newsweek.com]. I've known dogs and cats which communicate better than that convicted felon.
Re:OLD (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm the product of the U.S. educational system and have no problem forming complete, coherent sentences. So's my dad who wasn't born in this country.
The convicted felon supposedly went to the Wharton School of Business, but he's said he'll sue if his records are released. We can all guess why. If he'd had stellar grades he'd be bragging about his "beautiful" school work. But you never hear him talk about that. Funny that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Trump didn't go to public school, he comes from money, and his father gave him millions to start. Trump is not a self made wannabe millionaire. If I started with even $500,000 just given to me by my family without the need for a job when I was 21 years old, I'd have been able to turn it into hundreds of millions of dollars as well.
Remember, Trump managed to bankrupt a CASINO, and that requires a special level of stupidity.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Trump didn't go to public school, he comes from money, and his father gave him millions to start. Trump is not a self made wannabe millionaire. If I started with even $500,000 just given to me by my family without the need for a job when I was 21 years old, I'd have been able to turn it into hundreds of millions of dollars as well.
His wealth is detailed here [wikipedia.org].
Also, Forbes noted [forbes.com] in 2022 that, "Trump would be an estimated $400 million richer if he had just put his father’s money in the [S&P 500]."
Remember, Trump managed to bankrupt a CASINO, and that requires a special level of stupidity.
Google (and articles) say 4 times. So really special.
Re:OLD (Score:4, Funny)
Magnificent schoolwork. Yes, really great school work. You'd really like this school work. Best schoolwork in hishtory. Yes the hish. Don't you know they called it that? Before all the this woke-nonshense. Shensh, yes, there are more than 98 point 6 to a dollar and don't we all wish we had more dollars. Sweet, sweet money. I like frogs.
Re:OLD (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, complete sentences of off-topic lies that serve no purpose except to feed his own narcissism.
He was asked a question about child care cost three times, and still didn't answer it; instead choosing to ramble on about his own grievance parade and attempts to shamelessly gaslight everyone about long-debunked nonsense.
I dare you to name one policy Trump articulated in his debate performance last night - and I don't mean vague hand-wavey demagoguery. I mean an actual actionable policy goal. Spoiler alert: there wasn't one, because he doesn't have any. He's going to rubberstamp whatever anachronistic Leave-it-to-Beaver bad hallucinogenic trip back to the 1950s that his extremist buddies at the Heritage Foundation can come up with, and his eager little christofascist minions will be more than happy to enact the cruelty and misery.
I'd prefer a guy who stammers a bit and needs to be reminded of various points of information by a staff who's job it is to be experts on things and impart that information to a President who can make a decision, rather than a guy who is totally disengaged and is running an entire campaign about himself and his grievances than the improvements he plans to make to the country he's charged to run.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd prefer a guy who stammers a bit and needs to be reminded of various points of information by a staff who's job it is to be experts on things and impart that information to a President who can make a decision, rather than a guy who is totally disengaged and is running an entire campaign about himself and his grievances than the improvements he plans to make to the country he's charged to run.
If it was only just about the stammering. Biden can't seem to hold a thought without freezing up and saying whatever pops to the top of his head. This was after a solid week of prep work with 16 aids and Steven Fucking Spielberg setting up a mock TV studio debate stage. His people would not have organized anything that grandiose if he was alert and cognizant.
Be careful who you vote for. You are not voting for Biden to be President. You are really voting for his unelected handlers and inner circle to
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Traitor, felon, idiot, rapist, liar, con-man. Or Biden. This isn't hard.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware judges were generally on ballots. Don't they tend to be appointees?
Re: (Score:2)
Federal judges are all appointed by POTUS and approved by the Senate.
State and local judges are either elected or appointed depending on that particular jurisdiction's laws.
=Smidge=