SCOTUS GUTS Administrative State, PROTECTS Censorship
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Krystal and Saagar discuss SCOTUS throwing out the Chevron Doctrine.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: breakingpoints...
For support connecting your locals account, contact support@locals.com and CC breakingpointspremium@gmail.com
Merch Store: shop.breakingp...
To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and Spotify
Apple: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
#news #politics #youtube
Saagar is rawdogging these shows hard this week
I like him better on this solo gig.
@@Pomegranate_Davidsame but the duality of the show is what makes it great
@@TimFarrar Krystal is a ball and chain around Saagar's neck.
He actually does the work. Krystal just checks Twitter and Reddit.
@@Tom-qp6oh Krystal "Ball and chain". I see what you did, there. I like that. I will steal that line and use it as my own in future BP videos.😜
I swear half the precedent for the laws in this country are based on a lawsuit involving a fishery
lol this made me laugh because it’s true
@@Newsbro89but how many times did you VOTE?? 😂😂😂
@@jonathan7249 go away Russian bot.
@@jonathan7249 I vote in every election since I was 18. Including in primaries and off year. How about you?
@@jonathan7249dude get help. Otherwise we're all gonna read about you in the news a few months from now
We really should not allow people to go from middle school to high school without passing basic civics.
1) The Legislative Branch ________ the law.
2) The Executive Branch _________ the law.
3) The Judicial Branch __________ the law.
Clearly, many commenters can not fill in the blanks correctly.
And they still get to vote.
Everyone I know who has finished high school had a mandatory civics class.
And everyone who takes classes on government beyond a 10th grade level learns that this is an oversimplification and each branch slightly bleeds over into those.
They literally do what's in their names, I don't see how someone couldn't know
My awnser to all three: Breaks
Really.. But how many times did you VOTE?? 😂😂😂
And as for Chevron, boo-boo if Congress actually has to do work, pass laws, and make them clear and comprehensible. What the hell else are they supposed to be doing?
So corporations can just finance and divide both side so nothing is done legislatively and do whatever they want?... whats the news again?
Finally AN ACTUAL F.CKING STORY
Ya but aren’t you bummed we can’t somehow funnel every story back to Gaza?!?!?
Yup facts , substance and opinions and feelings never mentioned , nice to see actual journalism
@@Nordingaling wow. person with no moral compass right here
@muhammadyousef7965 Here's a quote that could truly fix yourself. "If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change " Take a look at the man in the mirror buddy. Have a great day.
Really.. I bet you VOTED and cry a lot.. 😂😂😂
Saagar, Congress can pass more than aid for Ukraine and Israel. Think of their pay raises! Bipartisanship at its finest.
Pay raises for politicians would be a good thing for the same reason raising pay for teachers would be.
... that's a joke right?
@@nfo1776really.. I bet you VOTED a lot.. 😂😂😂
Congress hasn't gotten a pay raise in like 15 years, contributing to the desire to sellout and become a lobbyist once leaving office.
But yeah, big gubment BAD
This is going to have a big impact on the ATF also. They changed around a RULE in regard to pistol braces that made 18 million people felons overnight. No 3 letter agency should have that much power. Thankfully that RULE was just thrown out in federal court and they are now legal for everyone. Everyone that lost theirs in a boating accident found that they miraculously washed up on shore.
Now abolish the NFA.
I wonder how many convictions that were in appeal that this will overturn? Also, didn't this make what happened to Brian Malinoski in Arkansas a home invasion and murder?
I probably didn't spell Brian's last name right, so Word Nazis unite.
@@banic8576and Hughes Amendment!
I came here specifically to say this, good to see like-minds around here. I know the ATF staff is in hardcore cope right now
@@CatharticMunitions now that I think about it, the ATF will push these cases through until the courts stop them. Then the ATF will rewrite & repost, and make citizens pay if they can afford it and hope the courts don't conspire.
So, Congress will have to start doing its job.
You think congress is going to pass laws? Let alone laws that benefit you?
@@johncrichton8876 hey now, just because they haven't for the past 4 decades doesn't mean they won't, right? Right??
Even if they did this congress is so fucking bought that they will only side with what ever the large corporations want. We’re super fucked
Really.. I bet you VOTED a lot.. 😂😂😂
@@jpnewman1688 Who made you play the STUPID GAMES ? GODS ? 😂😂😂
Toxic runoff makes the water taste better anyway
@@cattibingo The government who gave me lung issues from burn pits is a top pollutter of water with PFAS
no. states can still regulate water ways.
At this point I'm about to start bucketing rain water when I get the chance, but they pollute the air as well so not sure even that makes a difference:/
I'm getting an implant so I can pipe it straight in
God you liberals literally can't talk about any subject without completely exaggerating and talking in what if scenarios
The current federal judiciary system is already facing challenges with backlog and delays in case processing. The addition of numerous administrative law cases could exacerbate these issues. Judges, who are generalists and not always experts in the technical fields regulated by agencies, may find it challenging to handle the increased complexity and volume of cases efficiently.
I totally agree with you, Sagar, about these cases. The Hill meanwhile is calling this a win for free speech, if you can believe it.
Agencies role is to enforce laws passed by congress, NOT to create laws on their own. That's not how this was designed.
You want congress to decide every little specific detail?
They’re not creating laws. They are creating regulations. They have the experts in the field, they should make the regulations, not judges who have no expertise what so ever in said fields.
@@cattibingoyes because its their job
@cattibingo That's what multinationals want. In doing so, it would drastically slow down any new regulation imposed on multinational corporations. This would allow them to squeeze out profit margins for decades until congress eventually gets around to their specific issue. At which point, local communities will have all sorts of health problems due to chemicals in their air and water, and maybe the companies will pay a percentage of those profits as a fine.
@@straunwagner6322wrong. How do those boots taste? Regulations are essentially laws. Dont lie by semantics for the govt, its gross.
So does that mean if any corporation received a "cease and desist" letter, they don't have to comply until the federal court says so?
Most likely
If a law was passed by legislature that said an agency can send a C&D letter, then they have to comply. If the agency just decided to make up a law by itself and send letters then NO.
@@boo2457Or if an existing law is being challenged by said company then no also.
@@radiologicphysicist1083 no.....laws remain in force even if challenged unless the court explicitly says otherwise
I don't mind the concept. But my guess is since Congress is bought and owned by big business and special interest I see it causing more harm than good. I hope to be wrong.
Which special interest groups are you referencing? Are you referencing the public sector special interest groups? I agree that Congress and the Senate have significant issues with where their allegiances lie versus the citizens they are there to represent. To say that one could regulate out one form of special interest while leaving others unchecked would lead to issues such as.... Chicago or California or for that matter any large American city or certain States.
@@davids949 Its not that special interest groups exist. Its more about how they with are current campaign finance laws can pretty much buy votes.
@@Joe-qo8wb don't disagree. It's been going on for a very long time. Which is why I brought up public sector special interest groups. I am looking down the road with hope that this subject can be solved. But unless all the special interest groups are identified and regulated equally the outcome will likely be worse than what we have right now. And right now it's a free-for-all but at least the ground is level.
They cancel each other out.
You think the executive branch, which controls all the 3 letter agencies, isn't controlled by those? 1 person is in control of the executive. At least congress has more than 1 person
Doesn't this defang the ATF?
My understanding is nearly all high profile legal fights in the last two decades are around ATF rulings or papers, instead of a law based by both houses and signed.
Pistol braces, FRT devices, 3d printing, etc all have no traditional laws addressing them accurately but instead have imprompto ATF rules which carry felonies but are not law.
If you cant stop a 2nd hand amazon seller from disturbing class 3 weapons parts for the most common police handgun, but jail a man for a bussiness card with a meme on it, you don't get sympathy.
Most of these commenters are just nostalgic for the smell of leaded gasoline fumes
"I'M not like OTHER girlz"
The state is your almighty, no wonder you’re all broken up
Then tell Congress to make a law to make sure that isn't a thing...
Make Congress do its job!
Cut the power of the executive branch!
You do know they did the opposite of that with the whole immunity thing immediately after this, right?
@@cattibingohe's just parroting conservative talking points, of course he doesn't.
Congress hasn't done it's job in decades.
Yeah give the power of determining what the past decades of law have been to unelected judges instead. That's all this ruling does. It massively hijacks the power of the executive and Legislative in favor of the Judiciary
No, you need to outbid Israel/AIPAC. All about who can get them or keep them elected.
These rulings are healthy for our Republic. Not everything painful is harmful. The checks and balances are necessary because power is consolidating way too easily. The perverse collusion between the Government and technology companies needs to be exposed to sunlight. If there’s truly nothing wrong with how government gets its cooperation with business, then transparency should not be an issue for them. The old guard talking points that this is because of foreign interference has been proven to be completely false from witness testimony in these cases.
Finally our legislators have to do their job and be held accountable for their votes.
LMAO. Good one 😂
Except this really just throws everything to the unelected courts.
@@BDnevernindthey are elected. They are elected by the ppl we elect. That’s how representative government works. And one of the only jobs of the senate.
be serious
@@stephanieanderson1924 This is literally the same argument for an administrative state, except the head of the EPA can just get swapped out by the next administration, and federal judges are seated for life.
This isn't a 'big government' thing. The simple fact is that lawmarkers do not have the expertise or background of how these agencies work to effective write regulations. Instead they write laws and leave it to the agencies, who are the experts on this stuff, to regulate as Congress mandates. The Supreme Court basically gave lobbyists unlimited control in how these agencies work, which is asinine. There is clearly overreach involved but that can easily be corrected by Congress but as Saagar said, Congress hasn't done shit for 30 years. The Supreme Court's approach is just burning down the country and starting over apparently.
😂
@@Sublime- How to show you're a fucktard without saying anything. Bravo.
Unelected bureaucrats not beholden to anyone. No thank you. If they were not so out of control like an HOA there wouldn't be a problem.
Translation: "Ilove the idea of unelected officials deciding how I should live my life, what's up and down, and that a shoelace is a machine gun."
@@KingdomKillaz117
Translation: "I love the idea of unelected lobbyists deciding how I should live my life, what's up and down, and now I'm going to throw in an anecdote that makes no sense whatsoever."
Omg it is so nice not listening to Krystal’s screeching
Where are you guys with presidential immunity. At what point will you do even “reporting”?
I'm really enjoying Krystal's input today. She's much less annoying today.
Loving the implications from this on all those unconstitutional gun right restrictions. 🇺🇸
Right that’s what I thought! Am I missing something though? Haha I can see how it can be abused by big business as usual but screw it if it means citizens have their rights restored and protected against government overreach..
I remember learning how great food processors were back in the late 1800's/early 1900's before the FDA was a thing...
That was when farmers could actually turn a profit on livestock because they didn’t have to pay the government to process their animals
What??
The FDA/USDA actually is still a thing. They can't just make up new rules and categories on the fly now, and then force those new rules to be adjudicated by their own tame administrative judges.
Laws. Not interesting rules..
Are you even aware who is in power? Corruption massive corruption and nothing is now stopping it from going wild. You put your life in the hands of Bill Gates and Nancy Pelosi and you are cheering that on? Pathetic, absolutely pathetic how badly people no longer have the ability to think even 3 steps ahead.
The TLAs can STILL interpret the law how they want. Somebody has to challenge their interpretation in court before the courts rule on it. The problem with Chevron was that the courts basically had to side with whatever idiocy the TLAs came up with.
If the law isn't clear enough to rule on, get Congress to fix it. That is their actual freaking JOB.
Saagar's ability to critique both sides of an argument 🙌👌
The person who writes your screen headlines doesn’t know how to spell breaks
Brake is an automotive component. Break means to pause or delay
what a dystopian decision..... Its not for the benefit anything except donors and corporations at the expense of people.
EU has much more stringent regulation and standards for the benefit of people. Buildings dont collapse like in Miami, trains dont crash, water is free of poison, food standards are higher, etc....
The EU largely got there by passing laws and not by letting administrators do whatever they want.
So judges are supposed to be experts and we are supposed to ignore the actual experts in these fields? That makes sense
I've done strategy work for these "experts", they are 100% responsible for the monopolies and corruption we deal with today. It's unchecked authority. I definitely agree there be negative trade offs, but these agencies are meant to be advisors and guides, not market police
But now since the legislation has to be written with specifics of experts, the lobbyists will just use their experts to write the laws skipping the whole confusing process so the lobbyists and corporations can just write the exact wording of how they can do whatever they want.
That’s right. You get what you vote for. Next time don’t vote for these judges, oh wait we can’t… such a good democracy we live in
@@Prime1116 yeah but now competitors can actually sue you if you did that, when the agencies dictate the rules, you just lose if you weren't connected or didn't go to the same college as the director head
SCOTUS has much more power than our presidents; that's why they stay for life and presidents get voted out. Our eyes should be on them more than anyone.
What is stopping congress from passing a law saying agencies can do what Chevron have them?
Congress’ inability to do anything
Nothing at all. But now congress will be responsible for oversight.
congress is stopping congress lmao
primarily what's stopping them is that congress is owned by the corporations and wealthy individuals that don't want them regulating anything.
With this ruling, nothing is stopping Congress from explicitly allowing rule making or having fines, but all laws would have to include these details. Beyond the short term inconvenience and difficulty of actually updating these laws, SCOTUS is looking at reviving a 1930's idea called non-delegation doctrine that would not allow Congress to delegate any discretion to the Executive branch.
Chevron Deference gave an agency like the ATF the ability to make their own rules, as well as other agencies. Three letter agencies liked freewheeling on somethings, so I don't completely agree with Saagar. Everything has a process, so follow the Constitution.
Saagar needs his own show.
Remember Steven Donzinger? How would this have affected him?
thanks...sorry you & I have no vacation...in 🇺🇸 whites always go on vacation= look at my ex husband and all my white friends
NOTHING WRONG WITH IT...THAT US WHY WE HAVE FIRE WORKS...celebration...
Can we just make this Saagar's show and have everyone else as guests....This is such a better show without Komrade Krystal and her shallow bare minimum level of effort to do actual journalism!
Schocking- elected representatives will have to spend their time creating actual legislation instead of fundraising and hanging out with lobbyists. What a horror 😂
You think they actually will... That's the hilarious part.
@@Teyl1 now there’s a greater than zero chance 😂. But yeah, the external consultants that wrote the stuff for the agencies will just move over to the reps. At least there will be more daylight
THIS APPLIES TO FBI AND SIMILAR AGENCIES. ETC. i dont see why the JUDGE cant overturn a absurd interpretations by these overreaching agencies. They do much more than just arrest people.
Good, unelected bureaucrats shouldn’t be able to dictate things to the public on a whim
But unelected courts with life tenure should. Got it
INA 237 inadmissibility laws are just that... laws passed by Congress. I think you need to look into INA and IIRIRA Saagar. Now one thing that Obama started was Prosecutorial Discretion. That's where the executive government really took over immigration law.
I'm a bit surprised by the viewers of the show in the comment section, that they sometimes don't know where Saagar Enjeti stands on a the political spectrum. Reihan Morshed Salam is his ideological mentor.(Although he I don't know if he doesn't follow him anymore)
He's a Lyndon B Johnson Democrat. (I remember him saying that somewhere).
Has he ever told, you guys to vote Republican? No!
Has he ever voted Republican?No!
Unlike Krystal Ball who always votes Democrat. All hosts are Democrats, except Emily Jashinsky who has worked with Marco Rubio (I think).
Saagar has also done a show on The Hill, about how Libertarianism is just Corporateism.
He is America First! though, and He does believe that America should never allow itself to be No. 2 in the world but that is hardly MAGA. (That's just standard American belief on both sides).
This is a political commentary show for Krystal Ball and her Left wing friends, Right wing is generally not allowed, they haven't even had Marshall Kosloff on the subject of Israel war.
Breaking Points podcast is for a left wing, centrist and slight centre Right audience.
Hence, Sagar Enjeti has to bite his tounge. Also it pays the Bills.
The SCOTUS needs to be reigned in, this is a huge power grab. However, the regulatory state was already what, 70, 80% captured by industry? But this throws the water all out including the baby. We're all going to be working for Umbrella Corp soon.
The administrative state is one of the biggest problems that we have. There has been a ballooning of paper pushers in every sector and they have started to interpret law. We need to limit the powers of government ASAP and stop these people who run things under the table for decades without being elected
The EPA is out of control, they are DOUBLING emission requirements in 2025 for commercial trucking. Going to increase new semi trucks costs by 30k easy.
You should have your own show! IMHO
You can explain it however you feel like. Say its as complicated as you want.
Its Corporate entities, tell the government and its people, that it (said corporation) makes the rules.
America is run by Corporate interests and that has ruined our once beautiful nation.
RFK#47
Ok, look, I am speaking to all the slow people here. Do you want incredible energy infrastructure to magically appear? Do you know where the copper, the lithium, the steel, and all the resources come from? Yeah, cool, it comes from the ground. Mining minerals from the ground is always messy nonmstter how it happens. This ruling merely makes it less expensive. You should think about that, when you respond from your touch screen phone...
The Robert’s court has just been inconsistent and terrible. In particular Robert’s tend to be coward with absurdly cartoonish views on bribery/influence peddling.
I'm absolutely in favor of ending Chevron and I think RFKjr is absolutely wrong for supporting it. I still support RFKjr but not on this. As far as the censorship issue the government shouldn't be allowed to try to tell social media what to censor that's a breach of the 1st amendment but private social media platforms have the right to sensor whatever they want. X and rumble are there for the free speech folks like myself and you have Facebook and RUclips for the other folks that like sensoring their political opposition.
This is a Saagar I was hoping for when they created breaking points. Unfortunately, most the time it just feels like a platform for Krystal's progressive views because Saagar never seems to push back or express his take unless it's on some stupid twitter beef.
I Instantly thought of the ATF and their clear over reach going beyond written law in so many cases, so hopefully this interpretation drastically puts a Check on the ATF and other over reach by the feds
Those of you who keep complaining about Krystal literally want to live in an echo chamber. Don’t watch this channel if you’re gonna be so offended by a different perspective.
What does congress knwo about industrial effluent? How long will it take them to craft and pass laws regarding these issues? Congress want more responsibilities bnut do they actually have the technical knowhow and the capacity to serve?
I thought this was more directed at unelected beauracrats. TRUMP would not be an unelected beauracrat as the President. He would still be the Executive and have leeway in interpreting how to execute his duties.
Call me a consiracy theorist, but think they did this to make it harder for RFKjr to accomplish his goals of ending corporate capture in the regulatory agencies if he were to win.
Yea we definitely need more uneducated politicians pontificating on EPA issues instead of actual professionals who study these things for a living.
I don't recall electing those so-called professionals.
@@KingdomKillaz117 no you elected the politician who passed a bill that relies on the professional knowledge of other people to meet an endstate. The idea that educated professionals don’t know what they are talking about, but your dumb politician does is once again laughable.
@@KingdomKillaz117 nothing you say will stop climate change from being true, no matter how many dumb politicians try to convince you. And that’s only one issue, there are plenty when it comes to other environmental issues.
@@KingdomKillaz117 and your comment “so called” professionals. Who is the professional? You? Who has studied nothing and knows nothing of what these professionals would be dealing with. Nothing like conservatives being that kid that couldn’t pass a basic high school science class telling educated people that climate change doesn’t exist.
What are you on about? We shouldn't have people changing law via rules on a whim. I'm an software engineer working the medical field with years of experience. You sound like a snivelling child dude.
This is so huge. Especially for the 2nd amendment.
LFG
For everyone saying Congress won't do anything, Sarbanes-Oxley would like a word with you. The fact is, when something is ACTUALLY important, then you can convince politicians to act. The fact is most of what liberals believe is a 'cRiSiS!' is actually no such thing.
You’re missing that Sarbanes-Oxley references the Cfa 2002, WCP 2002, CCP 2002, for penalties. If you read any of these they list a bunch of ambiguous agencies for individual punishments. Since these are not spelled out, this legislation can now be interpreted by a single federal judge….
The courts are too cumbersome to fill this role in regulatory enforcement. Lawyers are in the business of making business for themselves.
The administrative state is one of the biggest problems that we have. There has been a ballooning of paper pushers in every sector and they have started to interpret law. We need to limit the powers of government ASAP
Just in general the legal structure and the laws of the U.S. are so obscure, impractical and inaccessible for a lot of the everyday common intelligence of people. That’s not saying that people aren’t capable of understanding rather it’s more about the laws being arbitrary and made up and not seeming to have true purpose.
Sounds like the Supreme Court is nostalgic for the era of leaded gasoline. As are a good number of commenters.
Finally, a meaningful action against the unelected administrative state that actually governs the country.
Has anyone else noticed that some of the bot accounts that spam the BP comments are starting to reply to each other now? It's pretty funny.
It sure is nice without Krystal turning every subject into a hamas cheerleading session. 😀
Never again Mr Musk will the Goverment to take a hike. He recently told Australia that.
Saggar - li,e all true right wing fascists - love BS phrase 'adminstrative state'
Chevron removal is potentially good for 2A advocates.
This is such a shortsighted ruling - how can you keep up with best practices if you need to keep passing laws over and over in a congress that cant seem to pass anything?
At this rate the US will fall behind.
Because it's their job to write and pass laws. Allowing bureaucrats, who have the backing of a monopoly on force behind them, to make laws up out of thin air is a recipe for the erosion of Liberty.
Congress needs to write better, more clear laws.
more corruption?
If only the fisheries agency hadn't decided to make fishing vessels pay an outrageous amount of money to pay for the mandatory government agent to tag along each fishing trip to enforce regulations. If they just hadn't been so gredy and power hungry this may not have happened.
So we get to see the results of money equals speech.
🤷 The Cree were right, let's see how long it takes.
Good hopfully this makes the ATF back the F off but I doubt it.
I wonder how this will affect the ATF. They interpret law all the time.
Not a fan of the decision overall. But something definitely had to change
It is Congress's job to create laws, not unelected bureaucrats.
When those bureaucrats go too far, then the average American, including business owners, should have the power to question it in court, and the courts should give an equal hearing (not give the priority to the bureaucrats).
That is what the Supreme Court decided.
I agree that the courts SHOULD be a neutral arbiter between the average American and the state… but they are not. The Constitution was created to protect the corporation and to protect the interests of the ruling class of the United States. John Adams had to fight tooth and nail for the bill of rights, also called individual rights, to even be included in the conversation, because the ruling class was perfectly comfortable without them, because their interests are secured through FORCE using AGENTS of THEIR STATE. We are just subjects of the state, living in the belly of the beast, the equivalent of a modern serfdom. You don’t have rights, you have privileges that are afforded to you at varying levels of convenience to the state or its agents. & you can NEVER have sovereignty over the land you occupy EVER, because the state conveniently granted itself the SOLE right to land ownership across the ENTIRE PLANET… I wish people understood just how far gone we are. We let the British aristocracy establish English Common Law across the entire planet, and that was a tragic mistake we are seeing the effects of to this day.
I agree that the courts SHOULD be a neutral arbiter between the average American and the state… but they are not. The Constitution was created to protect the corporation and to protect the interests of the ruling class of the United States. John Adams had to fight tooth and nail for the bill of rights, also called individual rights, to even be included in the conversation, because the ruling class was perfectly comfortable without them, because their interests are secured through FORCE using AGENTS of THEIR STATE. We are just subjects of the state, living in the belly of the beast, the equivalent of a modern serfdom. You don’t have rights, you have privileges that are afforded to you at varying levels of convenience to the state or its agents. & you can NEVER have sovereignty over the land you occupy EVER, because the state conveniently granted itself the SOLE right to land ownership across the ENTIRE PLANET… I wish people understood just how far gone we are. We let the British aristocracy establish English Common Law across the entire planet, and that was a tragic mistake we are seeing the effects of to this day.
Congress having to pass specific laws instead of vague directives is a very good thing. It will slow down the blizzard of regulations currently governing us.
^if congress can pass a law
This is the supreme court the RUclips comments wanted.
Saagar is so fucking good. best 2 days in BP history
Listen, this is good because any system that is built on the assumption that Congress is useless, would better serve as a reform to Congress or the voters’ standards
This isn't good because it allows for any possibility of "vagueness" in a law, no matter how miniscule, to allow for litigation of every single law in our country.
However, if Congress IS useless and has no competency to remove internal corruption enablement, then we are giving corporations as much room as they want to run amok. Corporations need to be checked and if congress won’t do it we need agency to have some department (ex. EPA) install and maintain guardrails. Even better if those guardrails actually have some teeth that breaking those rules won’t just be “the cost of doing business”.
It’s not as simple as “well then just vote in the right people” because we’ve clearly demonstrated we are incapable of getting people with the right intentions into positions of power.
That's why it's so good. Because of the provision in thr constitution that only congress can pass law. I think this means that regulatory agencies shouldn't have ANY power to create law. This decision speaks to that reality, and prevents agencies from taking power onto themselves. Which i think is vitally important for the preservation of rights and making sure that people who make law are elected representatives, not unelected appointees with very little oversight by courts.
Anyone who actually cares about freedom should be delighted by such a decision
@@therecalcitrantseditionist3613and anyone that doesn't want lead in their balls arent delighted by the decision. In the first place we have a bloated, lazy disfunctional, bought off congress and court system whose nature naturally benefits those with money. there is not a single branch of government that companies haven't absolutely decimated. You talk about freedoms as if companies haven't been empowered to control almost all parts of your life
@@snoz2898 these agencies are captured by interests within the industries they are supposed to limit, it failed, it needs rebuilt. It will not be fixed without a total shock to the system such as this
Personality goes a long way regardless of what side of view.
NOW How am I supposed to use OSHA to force people to take experimental medical treatments under threat of losing their accrued pensions?
By the time the court reviews a proposal like that, the people will have already organized against me. This process is way too time-consuming
Use the Thread...
1 + 1 = Poor & Working class being punished indirectly
The prior ruling enabled monopolies where agencies partnered with big businesses to establish market dominance, depriving the working class opportunities.
lot of incel NPCS glazing saagar recently.
Less bureaucracy is what we all want!
Life is breathed into the Separation of Powers once again
Separation of Powers means that Congress makes the law. NOT the Presidential branch. That’s the Supreme Court ruling. The court told Congress to do their job. Not activist agencies.
The right-wing business interests that fund the Federalist Society and selected Trump's justices know it's nearly impossible to pass legislation given our current political climate. This ruling kneecaps the ability for expert government agencies to make decisions and strengthens the power of wealthy people and corporations.
And Congress is captured by corporate interests. Good luck getting any consumer friendly regulations out of Congress.
Now a new era of corporate power will begin before which even the government will he helpless.
@@ethanbrandon195 Congress could do it's job, instead of grandstand, fundraise and virtue signal.
The whole reason we have executive agencies is for subject-matter experts to handle issues that Congress doesn’t have the knowledge to deal with. I would rather have experienced policy experts deciding regulation, not activist Supreme Court justices
@@ethanbrandon195how do those boots taste?
Why is regulation good, or preferred??! Why not default to the good of the business, as long as it does no harm?
lol. Tell that to Boeing
ofc saagar thinks that limitations to free speech is more dangerous than regulating carbon emissions
Gee, sounds like if it's really important then Congress should get off their asses and write laws about it
This is an amazing decision and may the ATF be decommissioned and sold for parts
lol, try again. The vast majority of their rules and regulations are codified directly in law going back many decades. Only the agencies that actually do things which benefit the 99% will be dismantled.
Ahhh yes gutting the administrative state, if only there was other times in history to compare this to. Keep fighting for protecting the wealthy elites.
You miss chemicals in the water don't you?
@@BigDongWong I'll take chemicals in the water as long as it means the gun grabbers get to face the wall
@@BigDongWongwe could have had a future where waterways are protected and unelected officials aren't creating onerous laws. It would require taking the concerns of others seriously and compromising.
Saagar rules
If the agencies hadn't over reached, then they wouldn't have needed to be slapped back.
They got their peepee slapped hard.
They have the power and you will do what your told
It wasn't a fine. A fine generally implies wrongdoing. It was the government forcing the fishery to pay for a government stooge ($700/day) to sit on their ships to monitor them, continuously and forever. The government didn't have any funding to pay for this, because Congress never wrote it into law, so they just forced the private parties to pay for it.
As far as the courts being able to review things. With
Chevron, the courts HAD to accede to the administration's interpretation of law, even if it was not the "best interpretation."
Personally, I don't think that the executive branch should make law (rules), execute them, and also interpret them. That's the entire reason we have an independent judiciary.
In theory you're right dude but the judiciary is not independent
Whether it's Dems packing it or Reps, it's bad for the country either way.
Like, when the Republicans didn't let Obama appoint a judge cause it's too late in the term but put in that Amy woman anyway, they made it clear. It's a political supreme court. Not independent. Like, you can disagree with anybody's politics but anybody with any decency knows that entire thing was scummy
A huge influx of court cases
So in both decisions the Supreme court ruled it should have the final say. Those folks are really feeling their oats right now.
Chevron is going to have consequences for how efficiently the government runs that people won't like. Rule promulgation is efficient and open for public comment. Laws often contradict each other, (or are ambiguous as written) and without a regulatory framework to resolve procedural issues everything can now be tied up in court.
I think part of reason Congress doesn’t pass anything these days is because of Chevron - they simply didn’t have to do anything, let the executive branch take care of it while they sit back and campaign and collect pay checks. Maybe now they’ll actually have to work.