BillsFanNC Posted June 29 Posted June 29 33 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Hi Roundy! Time to up those meds dear. 1
B-Man Posted June 29 Author Posted June 29 SUPREME COURT PARES BACK FEDERAL REGULATORY POWER: The Supreme Court upended the federal regulatory framework in place for 40 years, expanding the power of federal judges to second-guess agency decisions over environmental, consumer and workplace safety policy, among other areas. The 6-3 decision, along ideological lines, discards a 1984 precedent directing federal courts to defer to agency legal interpretations when the statutory language passed by Congress is ambiguous. Conservative legal activists, Republican-led states and some business groups have argued in recent years that the 1984 case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, allows agenda-driven regulators to push the limits of their power. By abandoning the doctrine called Chevron deference, the justices have given parties unhappy with agency decisions more opportunities to overturn regulations by persuading federal judges that agency officials exceeded their authority. Even before the decision, the conservative-dominated court had been hammering away at federal regulatory power, in opinions that threw out Biden administration policies ranging from public-health measures to contain Covid-19 to a blanket cancellation of student-loan debt. But while the Supreme Court hasn’t cited Chevron for authority in years, many lower courts said they remained bound by the doctrine as long as it remained on the books. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supreme-court-pares-back-federal-regulatory-power-954a101c?st=bqs3kkokkqnbdji&reflink=article_email_share , 1
4th&long Posted June 29 Posted June 29 The Supreme Court has been bought. They are just as bad as the rest of the govt! 2
daz28 Posted July 1 Posted July 1 On 6/27/2024 at 7:02 AM, ScotSHO said: So you weren't a fetus at one point? Yes, but word have meanings and they matter. By using your logic, every person who murders someone murdered a child, because they were once one, right? On 6/27/2024 at 8:45 AM, LeviF said: The "fetus" in question: Late term abortions are a whole different thing altogether, and I'm not for them. That's basically trumps only argument is they're killing all kinds of babies "even after they're born". The real statistics do not support that in any way. The vast majority of abortions are NOT late term. 1
LeviF Posted July 1 Posted July 1 9 hours ago, daz28 said: Yes, but word have meanings and they matter. By using your logic, every person who murders someone murdered a child, because they were once one, right? Late term abortions are a whole different thing altogether, and I'm not for them. That's basically trumps only argument is they're killing all kinds of babies "even after they're born". The real statistics do not support that in any way. The vast majority of abortions are NOT late term. The picture is of an 18 week “fetus.” 1
ScotSHO Posted July 1 Posted July 1 9 hours ago, daz28 said: Yes, but word have meanings and they matter. By using your logic, every person who murders someone murdered a child, because they were once one, right? Not my point - my point is this: What gives you the right to argue the opposite of your existence for someone else? Do you not see the conundrum pro-abortion advocates are in? Or do you justify it because you know that your mom & dad wanted you, and never had a second doubt about aborting you? Are you sure about that? I just find it hard to kill a future somebody. I was given the same respect, and so should the next person. 1
B-Man Posted July 1 Author Posted July 1 They continue to rein in the huge bureaucratic government (sorry Roundy) The first case is Corner Post, a 6-3 decision, divided in the usual way, written by Justice Barrett. SCOTUSblog: "The court holds that a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge an agency action first comes into being when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.
B-Man Posted July 1 Author Posted July 1 9 - 0 , I thought we had a hopelessly divided court ? Justice Kagan writes the opinion in Moody v. NetChoice. Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett join in full. Jackson joins in part and has a concurring opinion. Thomas has an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Alito has an opinion concurring in the judgment and joined by Thomas and Gorsuch.
Roundybout Posted July 1 Posted July 1 (edited) 5 minutes ago, B-Man said: And there it is. . . . . . . . . . common sense Awesome. Biden should use this authority to send the army after his political enemies. too bad, American democracy was pretty cool. A shame that we threw it away for Donald Trump. Edited July 1 by Roundybout 1 1 1
BillsFanNC Posted July 1 Posted July 1 ⬆️ Not sure what it's saying, but it's certainly UNHINGED! 1 2
Roundybout Posted July 1 Posted July 1 Just now, BillsFanNC said: ⬆️ Not sure what it's saying, but it's certainly UNHINGED! Remember when the presidency was not above the law? Good times. Thanks GOP! 2 1 1
Roundybout Posted July 1 Posted July 1 Just now, BillsFanNC said: Instead of laughing about “owning the libs” can you explain how this is a good thing for the country? 1
Recommended Posts