• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

Highland Deac said:
Clarence Thomas complains to his GOP buddies that he doesn't make enough money as a Supreme and may quit, wealthy right-wingers respond by propping him up with expensive gifts of all kinds. And why? "Because it is worth a lot to have the Constitution properly interpreted." Indeed. All 6 Republicans on this Court are a joke, period.

Click to expand...


Yep.

Just not the funny kind.
 
Highland Deac said:
Clarence Thomas complains to his GOP buddies that he doesn't make enough money as a Supreme and may quit, wealthy right-wingers respond by propping him up with expensive gifts of all kinds. And why? "Because it is worth a lot to have the Constitution properly interpreted." Indeed. All 6 Republicans on this Court are a joke, period.

Click to expand...

Supreme Court ready needs to up their NIL deals...
On a completely unrelated note, every picture of clarence thomas looks like a man who hasn't had a good bowel movement in years.
 
SCOTUS refuses to hear Trump’s blanket immunity defense before the DC Circuit. Helping their boy try to delay these trials until after the election.
 
Not sure how many of you work in a field that is directly impacted by federal regulations, but if SCOTUS overturns Chevron in the case they heard yesterday (and it looks likely that they will) it's gonna be an absolute circus.
 
Not sure what you're talking about, I read that John Roberts believes the impact will be minimal!
 
BarcaDeac said:
Can you give some cliffs
Click to expand...
Here is my understanding of the issue. National Marine Fisheries set a regulation that fishing boats need to pay the salary and expenses of the people that are stationed on their vessels by NMFS to monitor the catch and bycatch on a commercial vessel. Some fishermen sued saying it was an undo burden or something, but the case has kind a blown up into looking at a 40 year precedent as to whether or agencies get deference for setting regulations and rules to implement the laws that congress passes. Basically, agencies get a directive from congress and then make a plan for implementing the law by a process called rule making because Congress doesn't often spell out exactly how to implement a law. My experience with this is, for example, that the endangered species act says that the FWS has to assess whether a species needs protection and then FWS has to provide that protection if warranted. But, congress never specified what they mean by "needs protection" so the FWS comes up with some rules and definitions for that concept. One problem with this is that with each new administration, rules and regulations can be revised which causes headaches for businesses trying to comply. Some case involving Chevron in the 80's solidified that concept that agencies interpret and implement the laws. But, in this case with the fishermen, conservatives are trying to argue that congress never mandated observers on the boats let alone that the fishermen had to cover their pay and that the NMFS has no authority to assert this rule. Rational people are left to argue that is the way it has always worked and that Congress really should not be getting involved in the nitty gritty of implementation. In an extreme scenario, if they overturn the precedent, regulatory agencies won't be able to do anything without Congress specifically saying so. It would bog down even the most functional efficient legislative body.
 
Last edited:
birdman said:
Here is my understanding of the issue. National Marine Fisheries set a regulation that fishing boats need to pay the salary and expenses of the people that are stationed on their vessels by NMFS to monitor the catch and bycatch on a commercial vessel. Some fishermen sued saying it was an undo burden or something, but the case has kind a blown up into looking at a 40 year precedent as to whether or agencies get deference for setting regulations and rules to implement the laws that congress passes. Basically, agencies get a directive from congress and then make a plan for implementing the law by a process called rule making because Congress doesn't often spell out exactly how to implement a law. My experience with this is, for example, that the endangered species act says that the FWS has to assess whether a species needs protection and then FWS has to provide that protection if warranted. But, congress never specified what they mean by "needs protection" so the FWS comes up with some rules and definitions for that concept. One problem with this is that with each new administration, rules and regulations can be revised which causes headaches for businesses trying to comply. Some case involving Chevron in the 80's solidified that concept that agencies interpret and implement the laws. But, in this case with the fishermen, conservatives are trying to argue that congress never mandated observers on the boats let alone that the fishermen had to cover their pay and that the NMFS has no authority to assert this rule. Rational people are left to argue that is the way it has always worked and that Congress really should be getting involved in the nitty gritty of implementation. In an extreme scenario, if they overturn the precedent regulatory agencies won't be able to do anything without Congress specifically say so. It would bog down even the most functional efficient legislative body.
Click to expand...

can you give me some cliffs
 
ImTheCaptain said:
can you give me some cliffs
Click to expand...
IANAL basic understanding (and I could be off base) - In the past, executive agencies have been given latitude to create regulations for industries where they have oversight. That’s called Chevron Deference.

If the USSC sides with fish boat owners and overturns Chevron Deference as a precedence, decades of regulations would be thrown out.
 
TLDR:
Environmental-toxins.jpg
 
06deacon said:
Activist trumper judges are going to strike down agencies’ ability to do anything.
Click to expand...
Then Republicans will blame the general concept of government when these agencies are ineffective (as opposed to Republicans in government).
 
Justice Neil Gorsuch told Prelogar that he was less concerned about businesses subject to changing regulations, observing that the companies “can take care of themselves” and seek relief through the political process. Instead, Gorsuch pointed to less powerful individuals who may be affected by the actions of federal agencies, such as immigrants, veterans seeking benefits, and Social Security claimants. In those cases, Gorsuch stressed, Chevron virtually always works for the agencies and against the “little guy.”
Click to expand...

Supreme Court justices are out here trying to manage the political impact of their rulings by pretending that they care about people more than profits.

Supreme Court likely to discard Chevron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top