 
     |
| Today's SCOTUS decisions (Page 1/8) |
|
williegoat
|
JUN 26, 11:17 AM
|
|
Don't buy the spin. Read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.go...3pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf (go to page 6)
When I heard the news reports, I was disappointed. Now that I have read the decision, I understand. I am disappointed in the outcome, but I agree with the Supreme Court.
This is not a 1st Amendment decision. The plaintiffs failed. They could not show damages.
There are other decisions today, but I have not looked into them yet.------------------
"Ain't no rest for the whiskers."
|
|
|
|
randye
|
JUN 26, 10:18 PM
|
|
It is my experience that dismissals based on lack of standing can often serve as a "blueprint" showing "how to" for the next plaintiff or the current one.
The media is almost universally worthless in their "analysis" of this SCOTUS opinion.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-26-2024).]
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JUN 27, 07:28 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
It is my experience that dismissals based on lack of standing can often serve as a "blueprint" showing "how to" for the next plaintiff or the current one.
The media is almost universally worthless in their "analysis" of this SCOTUS opinion.
|
|
That was my take as well. The media doesn't cover such things because I don't think they really understand it. There's legal analysts for these shows, and then there's the editors who water it down to how they think people should (or need) to understand it... haha...
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
JUN 28, 11:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JUN 28, 11:56 AM
|
|
Oh dude... the Chevron decision. I could not be more happy...
This is what I just wrote to a friend (based on just a cursory review)... so I could be largely misinterpreting the decision (which I haven't read yet).
--- copy / paste ---
The Chevron Doctrine (what we’ve been talking about off and on for a year) was just overturned. In short, it significantly curtails an agency’s ability to enact rules that the public must abide by. Basically, it does not allow agencies to create regulations at will based on loose interpretation of legislation. It means now that for an agency to regulate something, it … for the most part, needs to be codified in actual law. So the greater part of the Code of Federal Regulations (where not supported by actual congressionally passed legislation), can be easily challenged in court, and largely unenforceable.
To be really clear, it shifts power back to the House of Representatives, and away from the Executive Branch.
This is huge… really huge… it’s the most impactful out of all of the Supreme Court decisions, and probably more impactful in my opinion than the actual presidential election.
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
JUN 28, 12:00 PM
|
|
Yes, the federal regulatory agencies have been a pet peeve of mine for decades.
There are also a couple of others that should make you happy, and annoy another frequent poster (poser?)
I am still reading.
https://www.supremecourt.go...pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 06-28-2024).]
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
JUN 28, 03:13 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Oh dude... the Chevron decision. I could not be more happy...
This is what I just wrote to a friend (based on just a cursory review)... so I could be largely misinterpreting the decision (which I haven't read yet).
--- copy / paste ---
The Chevron Doctrine (what we’ve been talking about off and on for a year) was just overturned. In short, it significantly curtails an agency’s ability to enact rules that the public must abide by. Basically, it does not allow agencies to create regulations at will based on loose interpretation of legislation. It means now that for an agency to regulate something, it … for the most part, needs to be codified in actual law. So the greater part of the Code of Federal Regulations (where not supported by actual congressionally passed legislation), can be easily challenged in court, and largely unenforceable.
To be really clear, it shifts power back to the House of Representatives, and away from the Executive Branch.
This is huge… really huge… it’s the most impactful out of all of the Supreme Court decisions, and probably more impactful in my opinion than the actual presidential election.
|
|
KOICHIE PAID FOR VICTORY
BRO'S K WANT TO BE FREE TO POLLUTE WITH OUT ANY LIMITS
REMEMBER IF THE BRO'S K WIN
WE GET TO BAKE STARVE AND FIGHT TO SURVIVE
IN A HORRIBLE POLLUTED HOT WORLD
IF THE EVIL IS DEFEATED
WE GET A PLEASANT WORLD
WITH CLEAN AIR AND WATER
BUT SOME DO SUPPORT THE RIGHTS OF BILLIONAIRES
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
JUN 28, 03:19 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ray b:
KOICHIE PAID FOR VICTORY
BRO'S K WANT TO BE FREE TO POLLUTE WITH OUT ANY LIMITS
REMEMBER IF THE BRO'S K WIN
WE GET TO BAKE STARVE AND FIGHT TO SURVIVE
IN A HORRIBLE POLLUTED HOT WORLD
IF THE EVIL IS DEFEATED
WE GET A PLEASANT WORLD
WITH CLEAN AIR AND WATER
BUT SOME DO SUPPORT THE RIGHTS OF BILLIONAIRES |
|
Again, you are completely lost. You are still clueless.
This is a victory for freedom. This is a blow against authoritarianism.
You are still a tool of the establishment.
1960s rayb would be protesting against 21st century rayb.
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
JUN 28, 05:52 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
Again, you are completely lost. You are still clueless.
This is a victory for freedom. This is a blow against authoritarianism.
You are still a tool of the establishment.
1960s rayb would be protesting against 21st century rayb. |
|
YOU NEVER FOLLOW THE MONEY
SO NEVER KNOW WHY OR WHO
SELDOM EVER EVEN LEARN WHAT OR WHEN
''THEY'' TOLD YOU IT WAS FOR FREEDOM
FREEDOM OF BILLIONAIRES TO POLLUTE
IS NOT FREEDOM
IT IS POLLUTION
AND UNCHECKED
BECAUSE THEY OWN THE COURT
FACT CHECK SOMETHING ANYTHING
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
JUN 28, 06:51 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ray b:
YOU NEVER FOLLOW THE MONEY
SO NEVER KNOW WHY OR WHO
SELDOM EVER EVEN LEARN WHAT OR WHEN
''THEY'' TOLD YOU IT WAS FOR FREEDOM
FREEDOM OF BILLIONAIRES TO POLLUTE
IS NOT FREEDOM
IT IS POLLUTION
AND UNCHECKED
BECAUSE THEY OWN THE COURT
FACT CHECK SOMETHING ANYTHING |
|
Every link I have posted in this thread is a direct link to the Supreme Court. That is the very meaning of "fact checking". You may disagree with the court, but that is only your opinion.
For two decades, my job dealt directly with federal regulations. One of the first things I would do each morning is check the Federal Register for anything new from the DOT, DOL and EPA. It was my job to have the facts.
Of course you still have the freedom to fantasize anything you like. Have fun, but try to act civilized when there are adults in the room.
|
|
|
|