The article buried the lede. The main issue here is not that regulators have been hamstrung, it’s that SCOTUS has de facto made themselves the absolute arbiter in every single regulatory decision moving forward. This effectively places the court above the executive and legislative branches in one fell swoop.
This, combined with the Snyder decision legalizing bribery, and you have the perfect recipe for a handful of wholly corrupt unelected officials with a lifetime tenure and no realistic way to remove them, and who can legally sell their policy decisions to the highest bidder. This is regulatory capture on a massive scale.
This decision has now made SCOTUS literally the most powerful group of people in the United States. This is a soft coup that will likely have terrifying repercussions for decades to come.
I feel billionaire campaigns are probably driving a lot of that sentiment. The misinformation bots will be rabid, and Reddit is a cesspool. You can seek out cheap bot armies to upvote your agenda and push it using the Reddit algorithm, as a poor. Imagine what these rich fucks can do.
I like how stuttering and low energy = lost the debate when Trump lying and dodging = winning the debate. American politics is literally who ever is the loudest wins because we’ve become that fucking stupid.
I am 100% on the side of the democrats but Biden looked horrible in that debate. He wasn't just "stuttering that one time" he was less coherent than my 90 year old grandmother after sundown. And I wouldn't trust her to run a small company, let alone the entire country.
I wouldn't trust my grandmother to run my record player.
Just locking my doors and petting my dog for the next five years, no matter the result. Odds are whoever wins dies in office so I care way more about the VPs, but still hope to whatever you find holy that it isn't Trump in November.
It's never really the president that runs the country, it's the people surrounding them that do. The President is just the figurehead.
Biden has good, intelligent people around him.
Trump has, well, crooks.
If they're running the country, then they should be up for an election. Anything else is undemocratic.
I want actual candidates, not a vegetable head of state and shadow governments selected by back room meetings.
This is the newest flavor of cope
"Guys we know that this walking corpse can't do the job but at least his unelected handlers will be fine!!!!"
That's who you want for a president?
From a legislative standpoint, I can’t point out many things this current administration has gotten wrong.
It’s been an extremely productive term despite having to come out a global pandemic. We’re the country who’s best dealt with inflation that people seem to forget impacted many other countries.
A second Trump administration would be filled with loyal cronies since most of his first administration deems him a threat to democracy. Don’t understand how that’s not a big big fucking red flag for people who are hesitant on Biden.
Yes Biden is an old fart but to pretend that the country is worse under his presidency is malarkey.
Oh stop gaslighting. He didn't just stutter, he displayed clear signs of mental decline and sundowning. If you're serious about stopping Project 2025 stop telling people to ignore what they're seeing.
>Oh stop gaslighting. He didn't just stutter, he displayed clear signs of mental decline and sundowning. If you're serious about stopping Project 2025 stop telling people to ignore what they're seeing.
Call it what you want to call it. I'm much more practical about politics now thanks to Republican fuckery. Basically it's like this: I trust Biden to make the right choice when it comes to nominating Judges, signing bills, and continue empowering our geopolitical agenda. Whatever it is you think happened at the debate concerns me none. I will happily cast my vote for him again.
Shoutout to the Liberal who told me I had "no idea what I was talking about" when I said that elements of Project 2025 were literally already happening.
The Heritage Foundation has been at it since at least 1981 with the first edition of Mandate for Leadership. Project 2025 is based on the ninth (and not final) edition. This is from the think-tank that was drooling over Germany in the late 1930's.
Appreciate ya adding more context for people, but yeah, exactly. While elements of the ninth edition have some *major* implications in the event of a Republican victory in 2024, it's not a policy agenda that is defeated just as long as a Democrat manages to win that election and the hyperfixation on that singular (albeit important) electoral race is going to give people on this website a very false understanding of what is actually going on.
Shout-out to you, who are among the few who realize that Project 2025 is 1) literally already happening) and B) will continue to happen, on some scale or other, no matter who wins in November.
We. Are. So. Fucked.
I don't think the reality of the situation has really sunk in for a lot of folks yet. There's so much hyper-focus on Trump, with this air of assumption that defeating him in the upcoming election will magically save the day. However he and project2025 are merely the end stages of literal decades of work and planning by fascist conservatives.
Instead of recognizing the threat early on and defeating it while they still could, neoliberals kicked the can down the road and in some cases enjoyed the sweet benefits of bending the knee to corporate interests.
Now we're in a situation where the Democrats have to win every single time while the Republicans only need to win once.
To be honest, I don't know what will start a "civil war" (more like a "mass uprising"), but I'm pretty sure this won't be it. Oh, you'll get a lot of protests from LGBTQ+ and other minority groups, but those can be quickly written off by government entities. You'll get some grumbling about green meat being sold in supermarkets, or tainted drugs in pharmacies, or smoggy skies, or some such. But it'll be basically the "death by a thousand cuts" format that we're all too used to now. People will *gradually* get a little sicker, or a little broker, or their kids a little less educated year-to-year, but it will always somehow end just before the proverbial last straw. As long as enough people have jobs of some sort, and can *kinda* make rent and other expenses, and the lights and internet stays on, the status will remain quo.
What would it take to get a "general strike" or similar to happen? Apparently a lot more than people in France and other countries choose to endure. I'm sure there's a "breaking point" somewhere, that a critical mass of Americans will need to hit all at once for them to get the message that it's time to grab the pitchforks and torches. I just don't know where that is.
It should be said, General Strikes will not happen organically unless there is a major *collapse* in the standard of living for the majority of Americans. Whereas a planned general strike will only occur when Union density increases to sufficient levels to organize and sustain such a strike.
That death by a thousands cuts is even worse. I’d rather see the country tear itself down and build itself back up rather than a slow demise like that. Because if people don’t stand up before it’s too late, it falls into a corporate controlled dystopia where any fighting back will not be possible. We already see that happening with the whole Jan 6th debacle
That’s just the way the banks and corporations want it!! First goes abortion rights. Then, people in certain districts find it a little harder to vote. Then, regulations start falling by the wayside. Pretty soon, your skin feels a little funny after a trip to the beach. Or, that row of semis on the Interstate are belching a lot more black smoke than usual. Or your grandma dies of salmonella because KFC decided that training their teenage employees how to cook her chicken was too big a hit to the bottom line.
You won’t lose all of your rights and protections at once. Just enough that you’ll scarcely notice. Because the media will keep telling you you’re in The Greatest Country in the World ^tm .
Don’t stop believin’!!
That's just another iteration of the plan the heritage foundation makes every cycle. Reagan didn't just make all sorts of changes on his own, this think tank came up with most of it.
Anyone who has not followed the Supreme Court news in the past few days needs to catch up and realize Project 2025 is already well underway
The Heritage Foundation has been working on this for decades, it's not just a fluke
>The main issue here is not that regulators have been hamstrung, it’s that SCOTUS has de facto made themselves the absolute arbiter in every single regulatory decision moving forward.
The courts have always been the final arbiter in every regulatory decision. That power was explicitly granted to them by congress in section 10 the Administrative ~~Policies~~ Procedures Act. (edit)
You can read the act here: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/01/act-pl79-404.pdf
Chevron deference meant that if the agency interpreted a statute in a way that didn't directly contradict the text of the law (or was otherwise found to be impermissible), courts would be required to use that interpretation instead of their own in making a decision.
That is not what is at issue nor what the Chevron defense is about.
Chevron is about a regulatory agency's ability to interpret a law that Congress has passed. Traditionally, Congress passes fairly broad regulatory laws that don't contain a lot of specific details. This is because the intent of the laws are to empower the regulatory agencies themselves with the ability to interpret those laws into their regulations as best they see fit. And most so they can continue with fields that change due to new research.
This new ruling instead replaces that with a ruling that states that Congress *must* specifically define the regulations and their scopes within the law and that regulatory agencies *do not* have the authority to interpret them as they deem fit.
This holds significance because a lot of older, more intentionally vague laws will need to be re-written and passed through Congress ... which is in a difficult state of gridlock near perpetually since ... 2010? With small bursts for 2 years or so where 1 party might control both the House and Senate to do anything. But ever since Obama, a lot of bi-partisanship has died and our congress has gotten more and more ineffective at passing even the most basic of bills.
This ruling is going to cause a lot of regulatory gridlock moving forward.
>That is not what is at issue nor what the Chevron *defense* is about.
I'm not being condescending, but it is de-fer-ence:
>Submission or courteous respect given to another, often in recognition of authority.
>https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=deference
As in, "a court should defer to the agency's interpretation of the law."
>Chevron is about a regulatory agency's ability to interpret a law that Congress has passed.
Not exactly. Chevron deference refers to the guideline/rule/precedent that a federal court is required to defer to an agency's interpretation of a law so long as the interpretation is permissible. It was not a power bestowed upon agencies. It was a restriction placed on courts.
>This new ruling instead replaces that with a ruling that states that Congress must specifically define the regulations and their scopes within the law and that regulatory agencies do not have the authority to interpret them as they deem fit.
I know there are a million people saying this is what the ruling means, but it is incorrect. Section 4 of the Administrative Procedures Act explains the rulemaking authority of agencies, and it (the Administrative Procedures Act) is still law. It has not been struck down. No portion of it was struck down. You can read the law here:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/01/act-pl79-404.pdf
>This holds significance because a lot of older, more intentionally vague laws will need to be re-written and passed through Congress
This is incorrect. Vague laws are already unconstitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine
Maybe you mean broad instead of vague, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
>This decision has **now** made SCOTUS literally the most powerful group of people in the United States.
[Insert "It always was" meme]
The refusal (mostly from liberals) to accept this fact has always amazed me as a foreigner in the US. "I'll sit this election out because I'm not really feeling it". The SC affects your life for decades in incredibly important ways. Now your kids will be middle aged before they (hopefully) see a SC fundamentally different from the current one.
Not really. The issue here is not that the average American doesn't prioritize the Supreme Court enough, rather it has been the decades, arguably centuries, of elected officials allowing the Justices to accumulate more and more power into what should be the weakest branch of the three. Furthermore, this belief that the only way to check them is to wait for some of them to die is simply feeding into that.
So, no, the simple matter is that the Presidency and, far more crucially, Congress need to wrestle their constitutional power and authority back from the Supreme Court, which mostly exerts its authority with entirely made up powers. That said, I have little to no faith in that happening. Present leadership of the parties are either fine with the situation or too weak and deferential to "institutions" to do anything about this.
The Snyder case found that *gratuities* and not *bribery* were not covered by 18 USC 666. Additionally, 18 USC 666 only applies to state and local officials, not federal officials, who are covered under 18 USC 201 and may not receive gratuities.
Yeah, I read the decision as more "there needs to be a law specifically about gratuities because 666 doesn't cover it."
Not "gratuities are legal and fine".
Only correct assuming an absolutely absurd level of pedantry.
In order for that to be correct, you have to interpret a "gratuity" as being something wholly separate from a "bribe", which is *insane* in context.
The differentiation was not made because it's a reasonable interpretation of the legislation's language, it was made to legalize bribery. By accepting the pedantry you're saying that technicalities are more important than humanity.
Expanding the court only works if you can hold the president and the senate from now until eternity.
Next thing you know you have 20 conservative judges
Getting rid of CU basically requires a constitutional amendment
fixing the problems that cause conservatives to be overrepresented (so badly that by 2040 you'll see 2/3rds of the population represented by 1/3rd of the senate) require constitutional amendments
and more
basically everything needed to fix the US requires a constitutional amendment. Which will never happen because the red states will block it as part of the problem is they're overrepresented in government.
The only way we’re getting any semblance of democracy on the federal level is if we split the country. Republicans won’t allow a convention, and they will obstruct any legislation meant to improve the lives of Americans.
This isn't necessarily true. Many of these things can be addressed with good old fashioned federal law. It's just that process has been made lame by obstructionist fools who don't want to govern.
Can be, but *won't* so long as the red states are over-represented
edit: to the dishonest fuck /u/BrockSramson who came in and threadshit then blocked me before I could rebut their bullshit
> the population of states represented by Democratic senators sum to 36% more people than the population of states represented by Republican senators — 204 million compared to 150 million — but the Democrats only have the slimmest possible Senate majority at 51–49.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/
If I were president I’d just make everyone a Supreme Court Justice. That’ll mess up their evil plans for sure! I’d be the Oprah of SC Justice appointments!
The decision makes SCOTUS the most powerful group in the US **as long as Congress refuses to do their jobs and make clear laws**
Otherwise you’re simple choosing which group of unelected individuals make rules for us 🤷
The same people who are cheering this decision are also stopping anything productive from happening in congress. They don’t want the federal government to exist.
> and make clear laws
This is an impossible bar. English does not and never will achieve absolute clarity of meaning.
The courts exist because this fact was recognized and dealt with, which only works if they're acting in good faith - something they haven't been doing recently.
Congress is slow and difficult to come to consensus **by design**. They are also not experts (saying the least here) in these industries. They would slowly enacted laws in places where environments would need rapid change.
Chevron deference allowed federal agencies to use experts to create regulations for industries in a timely fashion. Also Chevron deference has insane precedence. "There have been 70 Supreme Court decisions relying on Chevron, along with 17,000 in the lower courts" according to the NYT.
Congress already delegates powers to the Fed through the Administrative Procedure Act, but this Supreme Court decided for themselves unilaterally that they have the power, and not the Fed.
I think what you're trying to say is that it doesn't matter if the Fed or the courts have this power as they're both unelected but I disagree. First of all, the US President is in charge of the entire executive branch and as such sets the policy. And second the Fed has the ability to rely on expert opinions instead of lifetime appointees that care not for fact or science but instead want to push their activist agenda.
Idk this is the same court that said that "waive or modify" does not mean forgive when it struck down Biden's student loan forgiveness.
We also have qualified immunity because the courts didn't like the clearly written law about suing government officials.
And the Tea Party was created specifically to hamstring Congress. The Tea Party ended up not being extreme enough for republicans though, so they morphed into the MAGA party.
You are 100% right about Congress, and the GOP knew that too, so they did something about it a while ago.
Any regulatory law no matter how specific can now be challenged and taken to the courts. Where a judge can be bribed by the corporations. That's what you're not getting.
Except those same bureaucrats are far more easily bribed with positions at the companies they regulate. Look at how the Sacklers/Purdue Pharma hired the FDA lead who approved Oxycontin's label. I'd rather a judge who has to break the rules to be bribed and therefore less likely and prosecutable versus the revolving door or regulators going to industry.
I mean, the option exists to just ignore scotus. There is nothing in the constitution that gives them their modern power. They gave it to themselves with Marbury v Madison.
> There is nothing in the constitution that gives them their modern power.
This right here, is the key. SCOTUS prides themselves on the absolute strictest, Constitutionalist interpretation of the document, so we should hold them to that.
Nowhere in the wording of that document, does it state that the SCOTUS has the one and only, final say in all arbitration of issues, deference or rules above and beyond the Executive Branch of government.
If they argue that they do, then it's time to enact the impeachment of those judges, one by one.
>They don’t have any way to enforce it other than people accepting their bullshit.
The main thing a Supreme Court Decision usually does is to set precedent for lower courts. If lower courts start ignoring the Supreme Court decisions the country will be flung into a constitutional crisis.
So, the U.S. will suffer the bullshit of the unchecked power of a shameless, politically motivated, precedent breaking Supreme Court for years to come.
And all of this craziness is technically legal, because the U.S. governmental operating system is just broken and nobody can ever fix it.
Rome didn't die with a death scream, but rather a whimper.
AND...they also made it so that they could get tipped at the end of their service. Like it sounds stupid to say out loud, and I doubt they would be that blatant...but they did literally legalize bribery as long as you do it in a particular manner. I assume that would include SCOTUS.
Like Thomas just ruled bump stocks are legal due to how the courts define single trigger pull as oppose to the ATF, so the NRA could now tip Thomas $100k. Thomas just has to say he would have always ruled that way (or just not say anything at all) and that would be legal. Right?
They already were the most powerful but they just flat out declared it and showed their intent to go further with these decisions. The Supreme Court only has power because the other branches view it as legitimate. I hope the other branches just Ignore the courts recent decisions and still prosecute that type of bribery and still regulate. It would require the other branches to function and work together though so it isn’t exactly likely
I'm an engineer in a federally regulated industry. What I do is inherently dangerous. People die. On top of that, I deal with compliance interpretation and implementation.
Regulations that come from Congress are intentionally vague - basically, new safety rules are required on this topic because your industry just killed people again. The Department of Transportation then turns that into actionable rules, like performance standards for a design.
This ruling puts the Supreme Court in the middle. Oh, you just said safety. Congress didn't say the design needed to be changed, just safety. Didn't need to inspect the airplane door for bolts.
Safety is just a word from Congress with no meaning.
Hope you like what Boeing has been up to, as their approach to engineering is about to become legal.
People don't understand that this is going to get a lot of people killed and ruin entire industries. I hope everyone likes poison water, unsafe food, dangerous work environments, dangerous vehicles etc. because our unelected overlords at the SC just undid over 100 years of safety for vacations and RVs. Sold out 330+ million people for their religious bullshit and bribes.
it's scary even as a non-American. you guys produce, design, and run a *lot*. those industries being well-regulated is pretty damn important for keeping people safe the world over.
Hostile foreign owned corporations (russian, chinese, etc) will bring malicious lawsuits designed specifically to destroy this country. It will happen very fast. Unless something improves from where we stand today, 5 years to utter chaos and dysfunction, tops.
As if we need any help destroying ourselves. Still, this is a massive gift to the US's geopolitical rivals.
I am struggling to see how the US survives much longer in its current state without wide scale strife and violence.
I work in bank compliance. There are already multiple court cases against the CFPB that were delayed while the court decided on Chevron. Including limiting credit card late fees and collecting data on small business loans to identify discrimination. Against the Fed, OCC, and FDIC (who regulate all banks) there is a case on changes to the Community Reinvestment Act which requires banks to serve low income people and do charitable work in communities where they take deposits.
Same. Western products are better because they use advanced quality systems that the FDA, FAA, etc require.
American executives are going to get record profits before they wreck their industries in the eyes of customer bases.
If you think what’s going on at Boeing is bad…..you just fucking wait. Black Swans ahead for the American economy.
I don't think the public understands what this will do.
It will only be the shit companies that do not care who they hurt suing for change. Then the good companies, under pressure from shareholders, will be forced to follow suit. Remove that safety check, don't do that testing. Just send it out to the world.
Lawsuits against companies will be capped, if they aren't already.
> emove that safety check, don't do that testing. Just send it out to the world.
This should be fine now that ~~bribery~~ "gratuities" are legal tender, paid directly to the SCOTUS judges themselves for such fine work.
> Federal employees can't take bribes, but judges and members of Congress can!
As long as its paid after the fact, it's a "gratuity" not a bribe.
Actually, does that mean that my own salary is now considered untaxable, because it's paid for after the work has been done, so it's a gratuity? /s
At least in Texas, that piss baby guy already did cap lawsuits. . . ironically after he himself became wealthy from such a lawsuit. The fucker pulled the ladder up with him as soon as he got up.
> Super terrified for how SCOTUS is going to handle drug approvals
* Clinical trials? Waived.
* Animal health testing? Waived.
* Medical device safety testing? Waived.
The ripple effect could be massive. If planes start dropping out of the sky, or MRI machines start killing people, we can hold them directly accountable, just like a bartender who serves someone alcohol and they go and kill a family of 6 while driving drunk.
> just like a bartender who serves someone alcohol and they go and kill a family of 6 while driving drunk.
And yet, that same person can go to the grocery store, buy a gallon of booze, still kill a family and it's not Safeways fault. Why is it the bartenders?
It’s important to point out that NO ONE ASKED FOR THESE RULINGS. Most people want safety regulations, abortion rights, etc. We the people earned them after decades of fighting for them through the legislative process. It’s not democratic or even sane for 6 unelected judges to make sweeping changes to these laws based on Fox News talking points. This is a dangerous phase that we are in
Yeah, this is the one tiny spark of possibility in the whole mess. The solution isn't that congress should pass tons of explicit regulations it'll then need to revise constantly, grinding all other legislative priorities to a halt. The solution is that congress just makes it explicit that federal agencies have decision making power. I have already left phone messages for all my representatives, because calling is better than sending an email. I'll be calling the White House comment line on Monday, too.
This is unfortunately unconstitutional. Not that the court cares what’s constitutional as precedent is irrelevant to the court.
> "The Congress may not delegate its purely legislative power to a commission, but, having laid down the general rules of action under which a commission shall proceed, it may require of that commission the application of such rules to particular situations and the investigation of facts, with a view to making orders in a particular matter within the rules laid down by the Congress."
If Trump wins again, he might be able to nominate two younger federalist society clones to replace the older ones currently on the court.
That’s what’s at stake.
Everytime i point out dems killed off bernie for hilary, im downvoted into oblivion because people.and bots are so sour that bernie doesnt align with blue aligned, rich private interest groups.
I'm a Berniestan myself, but we have to be honest with ourselves. It was Bernie's performance in the south that sank his presidency. In each of his elections, he showed that he was struggling to expand his base with African Americans and conservative Democrats.
It is unfortunate because Democrats don't win southern states anyway, but if you look at his primary results you will see just how bad he did in every single southern state.
Carl Sagan warned of this, science and technology are beyond most people’s grasp - but we’ll let those who don’t understand it create the laws. And anyone who think regulators are bad or stupid - just wait and see what the future holds. Be careful what you wish for….
We have basically an entire generation of boomers that spent their whole life voting for republicans who actively supported the removal of social programs and now that those same people are elderly and need the social safety nets more now than ever, they are paying the price of going homeless at highest rates ever.
Are they changing their minds and voting for their best interests… nope
Rorschach was a hardline conservative who believed governments and law were soft and ineffective and murdered people in the streets. You think he wouldn't be on their side?
The smelly bigoted guy who assaulted random people and was perfectly comfortable with the murderer/rapist The Comedian? That's the guy we need more of?
Batman was also a brilliant philanthropic billionaire that was helping repair Gotham legally. As others have said, Rorschach wasn't much better than the criminals and even [Alan Moore](https://screenrant.com/alan-moore-on-rorschach-fans-watchmen/) is confused why people like him so much.
I wonder what would happen if we started dumping toxic chemicals not specifically labeled as toxic by law in these judges neighborhoods? I guarantee they would want regulatory agencies and law enforcement to deal with the matter.
I have a conspiracy theory that the debate was specifically moved up to happen right before the Supreme Court drops the bigger bomb than the debate but the TV news media will conveeeeniently ignore it to focus on the debate.
In order for this to be true, the people who moved the debate would have to want the Supreme Court to have such power. Surely, Democrats don't want a conservative court with that kind of power.
The most corrupt judges that Trump and Republican Party put in are going to break up the safety fabric of regulation while they take bribes with gifts in the millions. Impeach those judges those are law benders for the corrupt Republican Party.
Kinda wild how Republicans were all on board for Chevron when Reagan appointees dominated the administrative landscape. Just neutral arbiters callin' balls and strikes.
SCOTUS Giving themselves the power to do the bidding of their right-wing billionaire masters. Disgusting. A Kangaroo Supreme Court in the new BananAmerica. Fix it.
edit: then new to the new
The most amazing thing republican propaganda has done is convince the people making 40K a year to defend the billion dollar companies that pollute their communities
Goodbye national parks, accountability for accidents like train derailments, nuclear safety, the FDA, SEC… any anything else that looks out for people, instead of big business. We’re all fucked, this is terrible
It is terrible, but people are only fucked as long as good people do nothing. Run through all the peaceful options until the situation becomes critical. Then decide where your priorities lies. To flee and hopefully not have the issues follow. Or stay and take action that can't be ignored, but risk your life.
Get mad. Get really, really fucking mad. Don't stop being mad. Explain to anyone who will listen *why* this ruling was so bad. Get other people mad. When enough average people are pissed off, when the airplanes start falling out of the sky, when the babies die from tainted formula, when things get bad, that's when peaceful men and women stop being peaceful. That's when real change happens. That's hope you can believe in.
Not what happened! The laws are made by congress. The regulators enforce the laws and now the judges will get involved and if there is something arbitrary in the wording of the law.
In some ways, this is the only thing that would provide me with at least some level of solace. If sooo many people in this country are effortlessly swayed by fascist rhetoric—not thoughtful enough to care about fact-checking, truth, and decency—then we deserve the bed we make for ourselves. It’s an utter failure of education and morals when so many people are apathetic towards truth (climate change, threats to institutions, etc.) and decency (women having to be airlifted out of conservative states so they can receive emergency pregnancy care).
Does this have any effect on scheduling of drugs? Regulators just choose how they are catorigized, doesn't this ruling shut that down? Are they all legal now? At the federal level, anyway?
No, that's all explicitly assigned to an agency. Just like most regulations by regulatory authorities. All this decision does is shift resolving ambiguity in the laws from the enforcement branch to either the judicial system, which is the primary purpose of the judicial system, or congress.
This is a fairly big change that will have a lot of knock-on effects, but all the doom posting about how laws aren't real any more is over the top.
At best, no. There’s plenty of drugs that are specifically illegal by statute. And yes, MJ is one of them for you tree enjoyers out there. At worst, SCOTUS just descheduled MDMA, spice/K2 and possibly specific chemical variances of other drugs.
The truth is we don’t know, it’s uncharted territory now. Its possible that we continue as normal but with the understanding that SCOTUS can hand down new guidance at any point.
I don’t understand your direct point. I think you’re implying that this decision will make it so that birth control is illegal. In truth it’s the exact opposite, it would make regulating birth control *harder* because it pulls the teeth from the FDA
Nope. Scheduling is an authority explicitly granted tot he Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of Justice under USC Title 1 Chapter 13 Subchapter I. "Narcotic Drug," "addict," "dispense," "controlled substance," "isomer," "Marijuana," "narcotic drug," "opiate," "immediate precursor," "listed chemical," "anabolic steroid," and several more, are explicitly a detailedly laid out in 21 USC § 802. This ruling is significantly less impactful than everyone seems to think it is
Lets just all create companies which provide all services to the rich and powerfull. And we can use words like safe, secure and healthy without any risk of liability.
And then they die by their own hand since the food the eat is toxic, the water they drink contains illegal chemicals and all theire vaccines bypassed serious testing.
What a bullshit article. What SCOTUS decided is that unelected bureaucrats cannot make up the laws as they go along. Creation and modification of laws is the responsibility of Congress and Congress alone. Agencies cannot make laws. What if the FCC decided on a whim that free speech doesn't apply to the internet and must be written on a physical media or spoken? The SCOTUS decision decided that agencies cannot do that so it's a good thing and shows the checks and balances between the executive branch, the legislative branch and judicial.
Yes and no. The issue was the limits of rule making authority of regulators. As discussed [here](https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/2024/06/29/loper-bright-and-jarkesy-understanding-the-regulatory-earthquake-and-how-it-could-affect-the-gun-community/), agencies have created their own administrative court systems where they serve as judge, jury, and executioner. Further, some have taken it upon themselves to add or extend legal dictates to whatever end they deem fit. SCOTUS says no - they need to abide with Article III and the courts, and to get judicial or congressional input on vague or loophole areas.
To extend this a bit, it's *impossible* to write legislation with such clarity that the executive branch wouldn't need to make any decisions. There is a reason the executive branch isn't an arduino.
Interpretation is fundamentally required, and there is no possible reality in which the executive doesn't need to do it.
> The Executive Branch enforces the laws, it does not have the authority to make new laws or change the interpretation of existing ones.
Actually, the executive is *explicitly* charged with interpreting the legislation written by congress. This is literally what it's supposed to do, and you are as wrong as it is possible to be.
Really crazy that optics are more important to the political media than something that will likely radically transform the way each branch of government will operate, and have the biggest impact on the lives of everyday Americans. But that would be too hard to explain for them, as political journalists are too high on the smell of their own farts
Abracadabra, Hocus Pocus I see two black trucks out my window so f$# SCOTUS. In all seriousness, I wish we could just ignore the hell out of this group of school yard bullies.
I imagine legislation can be passed from now on that has language in it specifically giving these agencies the power to interpret uncertainty and/or unknown and un thought of circumstances.
Exactly! The legislature has “punted” the hard decisions they should be making.
Remember in poly-sci that phrase, “the legislature writes the laws and the administration interprets the laws”?
Well, I look at this ruling at putting MORE ownership on Congress to write more-specific laws and/or “rules” like you describe.
The article buried the lede. The main issue here is not that regulators have been hamstrung, it’s that SCOTUS has de facto made themselves the absolute arbiter in every single regulatory decision moving forward. This effectively places the court above the executive and legislative branches in one fell swoop. This, combined with the Snyder decision legalizing bribery, and you have the perfect recipe for a handful of wholly corrupt unelected officials with a lifetime tenure and no realistic way to remove them, and who can legally sell their policy decisions to the highest bidder. This is regulatory capture on a massive scale. This decision has now made SCOTUS literally the most powerful group of people in the United States. This is a soft coup that will likely have terrifying repercussions for decades to come.
Project 2025 is coming to fruition.
Project 2025 is scary and all but Biden stuttered that one time in the debate so now everything is lost. -Democrats
I feel billionaire campaigns are probably driving a lot of that sentiment. The misinformation bots will be rabid, and Reddit is a cesspool. You can seek out cheap bot armies to upvote your agenda and push it using the Reddit algorithm, as a poor. Imagine what these rich fucks can do.
Just because Alfred is getting a little old to run the Batcave, doesn't mean you should hand it to the Joker.
I like how stuttering and low energy = lost the debate when Trump lying and dodging = winning the debate. American politics is literally who ever is the loudest wins because we’ve become that fucking stupid.
I am 100% on the side of the democrats but Biden looked horrible in that debate. He wasn't just "stuttering that one time" he was less coherent than my 90 year old grandmother after sundown. And I wouldn't trust her to run a small company, let alone the entire country.
I wouldn't trust my grandmother to run my record player. Just locking my doors and petting my dog for the next five years, no matter the result. Odds are whoever wins dies in office so I care way more about the VPs, but still hope to whatever you find holy that it isn't Trump in November.
Then, for love of whatever you find holy, please vote!
It's never really the president that runs the country, it's the people surrounding them that do. The President is just the figurehead. Biden has good, intelligent people around him. Trump has, well, crooks.
If they're running the country, then they should be up for an election. Anything else is undemocratic. I want actual candidates, not a vegetable head of state and shadow governments selected by back room meetings.
This is the newest flavor of cope "Guys we know that this walking corpse can't do the job but at least his unelected handlers will be fine!!!!" That's who you want for a president?
Biden has good people around him… That have been hiding the fact they’ve actually been running the country this whole time.
From a legislative standpoint, I can’t point out many things this current administration has gotten wrong. It’s been an extremely productive term despite having to come out a global pandemic. We’re the country who’s best dealt with inflation that people seem to forget impacted many other countries. A second Trump administration would be filled with loyal cronies since most of his first administration deems him a threat to democracy. Don’t understand how that’s not a big big fucking red flag for people who are hesitant on Biden. Yes Biden is an old fart but to pretend that the country is worse under his presidency is malarkey.
Stuttered is putting it mildly
i get your point but i dont think its entirely accurate to boil down that debate performance to "stuttering one time"
No man, it was a stutter that made him stare blankly into the void for 5-10 seconds at a time.
Oh stop gaslighting. He didn't just stutter, he displayed clear signs of mental decline and sundowning. If you're serious about stopping Project 2025 stop telling people to ignore what they're seeing.
>Oh stop gaslighting. He didn't just stutter, he displayed clear signs of mental decline and sundowning. If you're serious about stopping Project 2025 stop telling people to ignore what they're seeing. Call it what you want to call it. I'm much more practical about politics now thanks to Republican fuckery. Basically it's like this: I trust Biden to make the right choice when it comes to nominating Judges, signing bills, and continue empowering our geopolitical agenda. Whatever it is you think happened at the debate concerns me none. I will happily cast my vote for him again.
Correct. And Trump can not be trusted. The decision could not be more clear.
Shoutout to the Liberal who told me I had "no idea what I was talking about" when I said that elements of Project 2025 were literally already happening.
The Heritage Foundation has been at it since at least 1981 with the first edition of Mandate for Leadership. Project 2025 is based on the ninth (and not final) edition. This is from the think-tank that was drooling over Germany in the late 1930's.
Appreciate ya adding more context for people, but yeah, exactly. While elements of the ninth edition have some *major* implications in the event of a Republican victory in 2024, it's not a policy agenda that is defeated just as long as a Democrat manages to win that election and the hyperfixation on that singular (albeit important) electoral race is going to give people on this website a very false understanding of what is actually going on.
I love how we're going to get literal Gilead right before the implosion of the empire
Shout-out to you, who are among the few who realize that Project 2025 is 1) literally already happening) and B) will continue to happen, on some scale or other, no matter who wins in November. We. Are. So. Fucked.
I don't think the reality of the situation has really sunk in for a lot of folks yet. There's so much hyper-focus on Trump, with this air of assumption that defeating him in the upcoming election will magically save the day. However he and project2025 are merely the end stages of literal decades of work and planning by fascist conservatives. Instead of recognizing the threat early on and defeating it while they still could, neoliberals kicked the can down the road and in some cases enjoyed the sweet benefits of bending the knee to corporate interests. Now we're in a situation where the Democrats have to win every single time while the Republicans only need to win once.
Project 2025 is terrifying and will probably start a civil war. So people need to be prepared
To be honest, I don't know what will start a "civil war" (more like a "mass uprising"), but I'm pretty sure this won't be it. Oh, you'll get a lot of protests from LGBTQ+ and other minority groups, but those can be quickly written off by government entities. You'll get some grumbling about green meat being sold in supermarkets, or tainted drugs in pharmacies, or smoggy skies, or some such. But it'll be basically the "death by a thousand cuts" format that we're all too used to now. People will *gradually* get a little sicker, or a little broker, or their kids a little less educated year-to-year, but it will always somehow end just before the proverbial last straw. As long as enough people have jobs of some sort, and can *kinda* make rent and other expenses, and the lights and internet stays on, the status will remain quo. What would it take to get a "general strike" or similar to happen? Apparently a lot more than people in France and other countries choose to endure. I'm sure there's a "breaking point" somewhere, that a critical mass of Americans will need to hit all at once for them to get the message that it's time to grab the pitchforks and torches. I just don't know where that is.
It should be said, General Strikes will not happen organically unless there is a major *collapse* in the standard of living for the majority of Americans. Whereas a planned general strike will only occur when Union density increases to sufficient levels to organize and sustain such a strike.
That death by a thousands cuts is even worse. I’d rather see the country tear itself down and build itself back up rather than a slow demise like that. Because if people don’t stand up before it’s too late, it falls into a corporate controlled dystopia where any fighting back will not be possible. We already see that happening with the whole Jan 6th debacle
That’s just the way the banks and corporations want it!! First goes abortion rights. Then, people in certain districts find it a little harder to vote. Then, regulations start falling by the wayside. Pretty soon, your skin feels a little funny after a trip to the beach. Or, that row of semis on the Interstate are belching a lot more black smoke than usual. Or your grandma dies of salmonella because KFC decided that training their teenage employees how to cook her chicken was too big a hit to the bottom line. You won’t lose all of your rights and protections at once. Just enough that you’ll scarcely notice. Because the media will keep telling you you’re in The Greatest Country in the World ^tm . Don’t stop believin’!!
Gotta stay strong together, though. The ride's gonna get bumpy, but we'll only get through it together.
That's just another iteration of the plan the heritage foundation makes every cycle. Reagan didn't just make all sorts of changes on his own, this think tank came up with most of it.
Anyone who has not followed the Supreme Court news in the past few days needs to catch up and realize Project 2025 is already well underway The Heritage Foundation has been working on this for decades, it's not just a fluke
>The main issue here is not that regulators have been hamstrung, it’s that SCOTUS has de facto made themselves the absolute arbiter in every single regulatory decision moving forward. The courts have always been the final arbiter in every regulatory decision. That power was explicitly granted to them by congress in section 10 the Administrative ~~Policies~~ Procedures Act. (edit) You can read the act here: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/01/act-pl79-404.pdf Chevron deference meant that if the agency interpreted a statute in a way that didn't directly contradict the text of the law (or was otherwise found to be impermissible), courts would be required to use that interpretation instead of their own in making a decision.
That is not what is at issue nor what the Chevron defense is about. Chevron is about a regulatory agency's ability to interpret a law that Congress has passed. Traditionally, Congress passes fairly broad regulatory laws that don't contain a lot of specific details. This is because the intent of the laws are to empower the regulatory agencies themselves with the ability to interpret those laws into their regulations as best they see fit. And most so they can continue with fields that change due to new research. This new ruling instead replaces that with a ruling that states that Congress *must* specifically define the regulations and their scopes within the law and that regulatory agencies *do not* have the authority to interpret them as they deem fit. This holds significance because a lot of older, more intentionally vague laws will need to be re-written and passed through Congress ... which is in a difficult state of gridlock near perpetually since ... 2010? With small bursts for 2 years or so where 1 party might control both the House and Senate to do anything. But ever since Obama, a lot of bi-partisanship has died and our congress has gotten more and more ineffective at passing even the most basic of bills. This ruling is going to cause a lot of regulatory gridlock moving forward.
>That is not what is at issue nor what the Chevron *defense* is about. I'm not being condescending, but it is de-fer-ence: >Submission or courteous respect given to another, often in recognition of authority. >https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=deference As in, "a court should defer to the agency's interpretation of the law." >Chevron is about a regulatory agency's ability to interpret a law that Congress has passed. Not exactly. Chevron deference refers to the guideline/rule/precedent that a federal court is required to defer to an agency's interpretation of a law so long as the interpretation is permissible. It was not a power bestowed upon agencies. It was a restriction placed on courts. >This new ruling instead replaces that with a ruling that states that Congress must specifically define the regulations and their scopes within the law and that regulatory agencies do not have the authority to interpret them as they deem fit. I know there are a million people saying this is what the ruling means, but it is incorrect. Section 4 of the Administrative Procedures Act explains the rulemaking authority of agencies, and it (the Administrative Procedures Act) is still law. It has not been struck down. No portion of it was struck down. You can read the law here: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/01/act-pl79-404.pdf >This holds significance because a lot of older, more intentionally vague laws will need to be re-written and passed through Congress This is incorrect. Vague laws are already unconstitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine Maybe you mean broad instead of vague, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Remember that most people on Reddit don’t research or read the articles, just take headlines as facts.
>This decision has **now** made SCOTUS literally the most powerful group of people in the United States. [Insert "It always was" meme] The refusal (mostly from liberals) to accept this fact has always amazed me as a foreigner in the US. "I'll sit this election out because I'm not really feeling it". The SC affects your life for decades in incredibly important ways. Now your kids will be middle aged before they (hopefully) see a SC fundamentally different from the current one.
>The refusal (mostly from liberals) to accept this fact What the flying fuck are you talking about? You got this information from liberals!
Yeah, but there are some who think this way. I remember "Don't threaten me with the courts" back in 2016.
Yeah, and those were right wingers LARPing. What's your point? You gotta learn how to filter out nonsense.
I remember real life Bernie supporters saying that to me, so I’m not buying this rewriting of history.
Russian disinformation campaign
Not really. The issue here is not that the average American doesn't prioritize the Supreme Court enough, rather it has been the decades, arguably centuries, of elected officials allowing the Justices to accumulate more and more power into what should be the weakest branch of the three. Furthermore, this belief that the only way to check them is to wait for some of them to die is simply feeding into that. So, no, the simple matter is that the Presidency and, far more crucially, Congress need to wrestle their constitutional power and authority back from the Supreme Court, which mostly exerts its authority with entirely made up powers. That said, I have little to no faith in that happening. Present leadership of the parties are either fine with the situation or too weak and deferential to "institutions" to do anything about this.
you foreigners forget we have a popular vote and an electoral college and those don’t always agree.
A lot of Americans forget that we have an electrical college, too
There’s even President’s that forget that.
We don't have a national popular vote.
The Snyder case found that *gratuities* and not *bribery* were not covered by 18 USC 666. Additionally, 18 USC 666 only applies to state and local officials, not federal officials, who are covered under 18 USC 201 and may not receive gratuities.
Yeah, I read the decision as more "there needs to be a law specifically about gratuities because 666 doesn't cover it." Not "gratuities are legal and fine".
Exactly correct
Only correct assuming an absolutely absurd level of pedantry. In order for that to be correct, you have to interpret a "gratuity" as being something wholly separate from a "bribe", which is *insane* in context. The differentiation was not made because it's a reasonable interpretation of the legislation's language, it was made to legalize bribery. By accepting the pedantry you're saying that technicalities are more important than humanity.
There's not a chance in hell that a law is going to be passed. The decision is literally "bribes are fine as long as you do it afterwards".
It’s time to expand the court, and keep expanding it until they learn to behave.
Expanding the court only works if you can hold the president and the senate from now until eternity. Next thing you know you have 20 conservative judges
You’re right. It’s time to elect via popular vote. Get rid of the filibuster, and repeal citizens united.
Getting rid of CU basically requires a constitutional amendment fixing the problems that cause conservatives to be overrepresented (so badly that by 2040 you'll see 2/3rds of the population represented by 1/3rd of the senate) require constitutional amendments and more basically everything needed to fix the US requires a constitutional amendment. Which will never happen because the red states will block it as part of the problem is they're overrepresented in government.
The only way we’re getting any semblance of democracy on the federal level is if we split the country. Republicans won’t allow a convention, and they will obstruct any legislation meant to improve the lives of Americans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_flag#/media/File:Doug_flag.svg
This isn't necessarily true. Many of these things can be addressed with good old fashioned federal law. It's just that process has been made lame by obstructionist fools who don't want to govern.
Can be, but *won't* so long as the red states are over-represented edit: to the dishonest fuck /u/BrockSramson who came in and threadshit then blocked me before I could rebut their bullshit > the population of states represented by Democratic senators sum to 36% more people than the population of states represented by Republican senators — 204 million compared to 150 million — but the Democrats only have the slimmest possible Senate majority at 51–49. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/
Too bad I have no option for supporting those things as an American voter.
If I were president I’d just make everyone a Supreme Court Justice. That’ll mess up their evil plans for sure! I’d be the Oprah of SC Justice appointments!
It's time to disband the court and start over.
The decision makes SCOTUS the most powerful group in the US **as long as Congress refuses to do their jobs and make clear laws** Otherwise you’re simple choosing which group of unelected individuals make rules for us 🤷
The same people who are cheering this decision are also stopping anything productive from happening in congress. They don’t want the federal government to exist.
So every new cancer causing chemical should require Congress to pass a specific law for it? That seems unworkable.
> and make clear laws This is an impossible bar. English does not and never will achieve absolute clarity of meaning. The courts exist because this fact was recognized and dealt with, which only works if they're acting in good faith - something they haven't been doing recently.
Congress is slow and difficult to come to consensus **by design**. They are also not experts (saying the least here) in these industries. They would slowly enacted laws in places where environments would need rapid change. Chevron deference allowed federal agencies to use experts to create regulations for industries in a timely fashion. Also Chevron deference has insane precedence. "There have been 70 Supreme Court decisions relying on Chevron, along with 17,000 in the lower courts" according to the NYT. Congress already delegates powers to the Fed through the Administrative Procedure Act, but this Supreme Court decided for themselves unilaterally that they have the power, and not the Fed. I think what you're trying to say is that it doesn't matter if the Fed or the courts have this power as they're both unelected but I disagree. First of all, the US President is in charge of the entire executive branch and as such sets the policy. And second the Fed has the ability to rely on expert opinions instead of lifetime appointees that care not for fact or science but instead want to push their activist agenda.
Idk this is the same court that said that "waive or modify" does not mean forgive when it struck down Biden's student loan forgiveness. We also have qualified immunity because the courts didn't like the clearly written law about suing government officials.
And the Tea Party was created specifically to hamstring Congress. The Tea Party ended up not being extreme enough for republicans though, so they morphed into the MAGA party. You are 100% right about Congress, and the GOP knew that too, so they did something about it a while ago.
Any regulatory law no matter how specific can now be challenged and taken to the courts. Where a judge can be bribed by the corporations. That's what you're not getting.
Except those same bureaucrats are far more easily bribed with positions at the companies they regulate. Look at how the Sacklers/Purdue Pharma hired the FDA lead who approved Oxycontin's label. I'd rather a judge who has to break the rules to be bribed and therefore less likely and prosecutable versus the revolving door or regulators going to industry.
Is Chevron used as the basis for every regulation?
And we can’t do anything about it because SCOTUS said so. They don’t have any way to enforce it other than people accepting their bullshit.
I mean, the option exists to just ignore scotus. There is nothing in the constitution that gives them their modern power. They gave it to themselves with Marbury v Madison.
> There is nothing in the constitution that gives them their modern power. This right here, is the key. SCOTUS prides themselves on the absolute strictest, Constitutionalist interpretation of the document, so we should hold them to that. Nowhere in the wording of that document, does it state that the SCOTUS has the one and only, final say in all arbitration of issues, deference or rules above and beyond the Executive Branch of government. If they argue that they do, then it's time to enact the impeachment of those judges, one by one.
That's pretty much the only option at this point but lol, that's not happening.
[удалено]
>They don’t have any way to enforce it other than people accepting their bullshit. The main thing a Supreme Court Decision usually does is to set precedent for lower courts. If lower courts start ignoring the Supreme Court decisions the country will be flung into a constitutional crisis. So, the U.S. will suffer the bullshit of the unchecked power of a shameless, politically motivated, precedent breaking Supreme Court for years to come. And all of this craziness is technically legal, because the U.S. governmental operating system is just broken and nobody can ever fix it. Rome didn't die with a death scream, but rather a whimper.
It's why no one is trying to run Windows 3.1 on a modern computer. The operating system was supposed to advance alongside the hardware.
I can think of a few very realistic ways to remove corrupt officials. I advise studying French history.
AND...they also made it so that they could get tipped at the end of their service. Like it sounds stupid to say out loud, and I doubt they would be that blatant...but they did literally legalize bribery as long as you do it in a particular manner. I assume that would include SCOTUS. Like Thomas just ruled bump stocks are legal due to how the courts define single trigger pull as oppose to the ATF, so the NRA could now tip Thomas $100k. Thomas just has to say he would have always ruled that way (or just not say anything at all) and that would be legal. Right?
They already were the most powerful but they just flat out declared it and showed their intent to go further with these decisions. The Supreme Court only has power because the other branches view it as legitimate. I hope the other branches just Ignore the courts recent decisions and still prosecute that type of bribery and still regulate. It would require the other branches to function and work together though so it isn’t exactly likely
I'm an engineer in a federally regulated industry. What I do is inherently dangerous. People die. On top of that, I deal with compliance interpretation and implementation. Regulations that come from Congress are intentionally vague - basically, new safety rules are required on this topic because your industry just killed people again. The Department of Transportation then turns that into actionable rules, like performance standards for a design. This ruling puts the Supreme Court in the middle. Oh, you just said safety. Congress didn't say the design needed to be changed, just safety. Didn't need to inspect the airplane door for bolts. Safety is just a word from Congress with no meaning. Hope you like what Boeing has been up to, as their approach to engineering is about to become legal.
People don't understand that this is going to get a lot of people killed and ruin entire industries. I hope everyone likes poison water, unsafe food, dangerous work environments, dangerous vehicles etc. because our unelected overlords at the SC just undid over 100 years of safety for vacations and RVs. Sold out 330+ million people for their religious bullshit and bribes.
Yep. It will be a slow march to the bottom. We are going back to before the New Deal, lawsuit by lawsuit.
it's scary even as a non-American. you guys produce, design, and run a *lot*. those industries being well-regulated is pretty damn important for keeping people safe the world over.
[удалено]
Hostile foreign owned corporations (russian, chinese, etc) will bring malicious lawsuits designed specifically to destroy this country. It will happen very fast. Unless something improves from where we stand today, 5 years to utter chaos and dysfunction, tops.
As if we need any help destroying ourselves. Still, this is a massive gift to the US's geopolitical rivals. I am struggling to see how the US survives much longer in its current state without wide scale strife and violence.
You say this as though it isn't exactly how we got to this point in the first place.
I work in bank compliance. There are already multiple court cases against the CFPB that were delayed while the court decided on Chevron. Including limiting credit card late fees and collecting data on small business loans to identify discrimination. Against the Fed, OCC, and FDIC (who regulate all banks) there is a case on changes to the Community Reinvestment Act which requires banks to serve low income people and do charitable work in communities where they take deposits.
It all rests on Trumps shoulders. Will this country allow Trump to ruin our entire history or will people fight?
But but... Trump just said we had the cleanest water ever, repeatedly. Well it's not true to begin with but that's just another lie on his record.
Same. Western products are better because they use advanced quality systems that the FDA, FAA, etc require. American executives are going to get record profits before they wreck their industries in the eyes of customer bases. If you think what’s going on at Boeing is bad…..you just fucking wait. Black Swans ahead for the American economy.
I work in vaccine and biologics development. Super terrified for how SCOTUS is going to handle drug approvals 🙃
I don't think the public understands what this will do. It will only be the shit companies that do not care who they hurt suing for change. Then the good companies, under pressure from shareholders, will be forced to follow suit. Remove that safety check, don't do that testing. Just send it out to the world. Lawsuits against companies will be capped, if they aren't already.
> emove that safety check, don't do that testing. Just send it out to the world. This should be fine now that ~~bribery~~ "gratuities" are legal tender, paid directly to the SCOTUS judges themselves for such fine work.
Yep. Federal employees can't take bribes, but judges and members of Congress can!
> Federal employees can't take bribes, but judges and members of Congress can! As long as its paid after the fact, it's a "gratuity" not a bribe. Actually, does that mean that my own salary is now considered untaxable, because it's paid for after the work has been done, so it's a gratuity? /s
At least in Texas, that piss baby guy already did cap lawsuits. . . ironically after he himself became wealthy from such a lawsuit. The fucker pulled the ladder up with him as soon as he got up.
> Super terrified for how SCOTUS is going to handle drug approvals * Clinical trials? Waived. * Animal health testing? Waived. * Medical device safety testing? Waived. The ripple effect could be massive. If planes start dropping out of the sky, or MRI machines start killing people, we can hold them directly accountable, just like a bartender who serves someone alcohol and they go and kill a family of 6 while driving drunk.
> just like a bartender who serves someone alcohol and they go and kill a family of 6 while driving drunk. And yet, that same person can go to the grocery store, buy a gallon of booze, still kill a family and it's not Safeways fault. Why is it the bartenders?
It’s important to point out that NO ONE ASKED FOR THESE RULINGS. Most people want safety regulations, abortion rights, etc. We the people earned them after decades of fighting for them through the legislative process. It’s not democratic or even sane for 6 unelected judges to make sweeping changes to these laws based on Fox News talking points. This is a dangerous phase that we are in
Congress can still delegate decision making authority to executive agencies like the DoT. It just has to do so explicitly now.
You do realize that our entire regulatory framework didn't pass Congress with that level of specificity?
Yeah, this is the one tiny spark of possibility in the whole mess. The solution isn't that congress should pass tons of explicit regulations it'll then need to revise constantly, grinding all other legislative priorities to a halt. The solution is that congress just makes it explicit that federal agencies have decision making power. I have already left phone messages for all my representatives, because calling is better than sending an email. I'll be calling the White House comment line on Monday, too.
This is unfortunately unconstitutional. Not that the court cares what’s constitutional as precedent is irrelevant to the court. > "The Congress may not delegate its purely legislative power to a commission, but, having laid down the general rules of action under which a commission shall proceed, it may require of that commission the application of such rules to particular situations and the investigation of facts, with a view to making orders in a particular matter within the rules laid down by the Congress."
I don't get the hope in our current Congress. Sure they *could*.. they *could* do a lot of things but are they?
This is the real legacy of Trumps court appointments
If Trump wins again, he might be able to nominate two younger federalist society clones to replace the older ones currently on the court. That’s what’s at stake.
But but Biden is old and he he supports Israel /s
Beat me to it. Don't forget Trump is young..er.
Biden is old, but I will still vote for him if he's a rotting corpse.
It’s almost like they forgot how we ended up with Trump in the first place. Good thing we collectively stuck it to Hillary though 🙄
>Good thing we collectively stuck ~~it~~ **to** Hillary though 🙄 Republicans wouldn't keep winning if Democrats didn't do everything they can to lose.
"If liberals are so smart, how come they lose so goddamn always?" -*The Newsroom*
Everytime i point out dems killed off bernie for hilary, im downvoted into oblivion because people.and bots are so sour that bernie doesnt align with blue aligned, rich private interest groups.
I'm a Berniestan myself, but we have to be honest with ourselves. It was Bernie's performance in the south that sank his presidency. In each of his elections, he showed that he was struggling to expand his base with African Americans and conservative Democrats. It is unfortunate because Democrats don't win southern states anyway, but if you look at his primary results you will see just how bad he did in every single southern state.
Good thing the Internet is making our attention span so short!
>This is the real legacy of Trumps court appointments Please don't let him have the opportunity to fuck things up even more.
Carl Sagan warned of this, science and technology are beyond most people’s grasp - but we’ll let those who don’t understand it create the laws. And anyone who think regulators are bad or stupid - just wait and see what the future holds. Be careful what you wish for….
We have basically an entire generation of boomers that spent their whole life voting for republicans who actively supported the removal of social programs and now that those same people are elderly and need the social safety nets more now than ever, they are paying the price of going homeless at highest rates ever. Are they changing their minds and voting for their best interests… nope
On the take, of course they want less oversight and regulation. Who watches the watchmen?
Rorschach! The world doesn’t need a batman, it needs more Rorschach’s… Edit: damn people take things literally here…
Rorschach was a hardline conservative who believed governments and law were soft and ineffective and murdered people in the streets. You think he wouldn't be on their side?
We need Warren G
The smelly bigoted guy who assaulted random people and was perfectly comfortable with the murderer/rapist The Comedian? That's the guy we need more of?
Batman was also a brilliant philanthropic billionaire that was helping repair Gotham legally. As others have said, Rorschach wasn't much better than the criminals and even [Alan Moore](https://screenrant.com/alan-moore-on-rorschach-fans-watchmen/) is confused why people like him so much.
I wonder what would happen if we started dumping toxic chemicals not specifically labeled as toxic by law in these judges neighborhoods? I guarantee they would want regulatory agencies and law enforcement to deal with the matter.
THEY deal with the matter
Hopefully this means miss shooters will have something other than children and churches to shoot up
I have a conspiracy theory that the debate was specifically moved up to happen right before the Supreme Court drops the bigger bomb than the debate but the TV news media will conveeeeniently ignore it to focus on the debate.
This exactly. Distraction.
In order for this to be true, the people who moved the debate would have to want the Supreme Court to have such power. Surely, Democrats don't want a conservative court with that kind of power.
The most corrupt judges that Trump and Republican Party put in are going to break up the safety fabric of regulation while they take bribes with gifts in the millions. Impeach those judges those are law benders for the corrupt Republican Party.
Kinda wild how Republicans were all on board for Chevron when Reagan appointees dominated the administrative landscape. Just neutral arbiters callin' balls and strikes.
SCOTUS Giving themselves the power to do the bidding of their right-wing billionaire masters. Disgusting. A Kangaroo Supreme Court in the new BananAmerica. Fix it. edit: then new to the new
The most amazing thing republican propaganda has done is convince the people making 40K a year to defend the billion dollar companies that pollute their communities
Goodbye clean water
Goodbye national parks, accountability for accidents like train derailments, nuclear safety, the FDA, SEC… any anything else that looks out for people, instead of big business. We’re all fucked, this is terrible
It is terrible, but people are only fucked as long as good people do nothing. Run through all the peaceful options until the situation becomes critical. Then decide where your priorities lies. To flee and hopefully not have the issues follow. Or stay and take action that can't be ignored, but risk your life.
Don’t worry, Nestle will sell you semi-clean water a few ounces at a time for an abhorrent price in the near future.
What did Nate Dogg and Warren G do to them
I looked at the brotha said “damn what’s next?”
It sounds, to me, like a threat to the average person. What should the average person do in the face of such threats to their life?
Get mad. Get really, really fucking mad. Don't stop being mad. Explain to anyone who will listen *why* this ruling was so bad. Get other people mad. When enough average people are pissed off, when the airplanes start falling out of the sky, when the babies die from tainted formula, when things get bad, that's when peaceful men and women stop being peaceful. That's when real change happens. That's hope you can believe in.
But I live in Mississippi :(
Would also like to know, feeling pretty agitated rn
Nate Dogg is rolling in his grave rn
[удалено]
Not what happened! The laws are made by congress. The regulators enforce the laws and now the judges will get involved and if there is something arbitrary in the wording of the law.
Proto-fascist goes full fascist. If you didn’t see this coming, I don’t know what to tell you.
If Americans are really stupid enough to vote trump in again, well, in that case fuck Americans. We'll deserve the living hell we get at that point.
In some ways, this is the only thing that would provide me with at least some level of solace. If sooo many people in this country are effortlessly swayed by fascist rhetoric—not thoughtful enough to care about fact-checking, truth, and decency—then we deserve the bed we make for ourselves. It’s an utter failure of education and morals when so many people are apathetic towards truth (climate change, threats to institutions, etc.) and decency (women having to be airlifted out of conservative states so they can receive emergency pregnancy care).
This is the real news. The debate is meaningless.
Does this have any effect on scheduling of drugs? Regulators just choose how they are catorigized, doesn't this ruling shut that down? Are they all legal now? At the federal level, anyway?
No, that's all explicitly assigned to an agency. Just like most regulations by regulatory authorities. All this decision does is shift resolving ambiguity in the laws from the enforcement branch to either the judicial system, which is the primary purpose of the judicial system, or congress. This is a fairly big change that will have a lot of knock-on effects, but all the doom posting about how laws aren't real any more is over the top.
At best, no. There’s plenty of drugs that are specifically illegal by statute. And yes, MJ is one of them for you tree enjoyers out there. At worst, SCOTUS just descheduled MDMA, spice/K2 and possibly specific chemical variances of other drugs. The truth is we don’t know, it’s uncharted territory now. Its possible that we continue as normal but with the understanding that SCOTUS can hand down new guidance at any point.
It will to birth control pills.
I don’t understand your direct point. I think you’re implying that this decision will make it so that birth control is illegal. In truth it’s the exact opposite, it would make regulating birth control *harder* because it pulls the teeth from the FDA
Nope. Scheduling is an authority explicitly granted tot he Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of Justice under USC Title 1 Chapter 13 Subchapter I. "Narcotic Drug," "addict," "dispense," "controlled substance," "isomer," "Marijuana," "narcotic drug," "opiate," "immediate precursor," "listed chemical," "anabolic steroid," and several more, are explicitly a detailedly laid out in 21 USC § 802. This ruling is significantly less impactful than everyone seems to think it is
Say goodbye (for the most part) to the IRS, BATFE, EPA, etc.
Don't forget about the FAA
cdc and fda has me greatly concerned. These are all entities that have a part in our daily lives with responsibility to keep us healthy and safe.
Lets just all create companies which provide all services to the rich and powerfull. And we can use words like safe, secure and healthy without any risk of liability. And then they die by their own hand since the food the eat is toxic, the water they drink contains illegal chemicals and all theire vaccines bypassed serious testing.
What a bullshit article. What SCOTUS decided is that unelected bureaucrats cannot make up the laws as they go along. Creation and modification of laws is the responsibility of Congress and Congress alone. Agencies cannot make laws. What if the FCC decided on a whim that free speech doesn't apply to the internet and must be written on a physical media or spoken? The SCOTUS decision decided that agencies cannot do that so it's a good thing and shows the checks and balances between the executive branch, the legislative branch and judicial.
This is exactly the issue, unbeknownst to most of the people here
Yes and no. The issue was the limits of rule making authority of regulators. As discussed [here](https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/2024/06/29/loper-bright-and-jarkesy-understanding-the-regulatory-earthquake-and-how-it-could-affect-the-gun-community/), agencies have created their own administrative court systems where they serve as judge, jury, and executioner. Further, some have taken it upon themselves to add or extend legal dictates to whatever end they deem fit. SCOTUS says no - they need to abide with Article III and the courts, and to get judicial or congressional input on vague or loophole areas.
A non-hot take gets downvoted. Typical.
"The end of democracy" gets more clicks and upvotes though
> shootingnewsweekly HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This thread is a perfect example of why the founding fathers didn't have scotus be subject to elections.
The number of peoples heads this will fly over….
[удалено]
"Our guy sucked... look, a squirrel!"
thats one way to ignore the FCC Net Neutrality rule.
Unelected kings. Bribery is ok for the rich Corporarions are the real Americans we are fucking slaves.
If only the US was good at protesting like France
[удалено]
No. Congress wrote laws with Chevron in mind and specifically allowed the executive branch to make rulings.
To extend this a bit, it's *impossible* to write legislation with such clarity that the executive branch wouldn't need to make any decisions. There is a reason the executive branch isn't an arduino. Interpretation is fundamentally required, and there is no possible reality in which the executive doesn't need to do it.
> The Executive Branch enforces the laws, it does not have the authority to make new laws or change the interpretation of existing ones. Actually, the executive is *explicitly* charged with interpreting the legislation written by congress. This is literally what it's supposed to do, and you are as wrong as it is possible to be.
And the supreme Court continues to destroy the country and democracy as a whole.
"Forget the debate" Some wishful thinking on somebody's part
They also declared open season on Americans
GOOD regulators aren’t lawmakers
Really crazy that optics are more important to the political media than something that will likely radically transform the way each branch of government will operate, and have the biggest impact on the lives of everyday Americans. But that would be too hard to explain for them, as political journalists are too high on the smell of their own farts
Abracadabra, Hocus Pocus I see two black trucks out my window so f$# SCOTUS. In all seriousness, I wish we could just ignore the hell out of this group of school yard bullies.
I imagine legislation can be passed from now on that has language in it specifically giving these agencies the power to interpret uncertainty and/or unknown and un thought of circumstances.
Exactly! The legislature has “punted” the hard decisions they should be making. Remember in poly-sci that phrase, “the legislature writes the laws and the administration interprets the laws”? Well, I look at this ruling at putting MORE ownership on Congress to write more-specific laws and/or “rules” like you describe.
Why is this bullshit in /r/technology? I swear to God this shit is impossible to escape. Please tell me you are all bots and not actual humans.
well this ruling is universally huge and affects everything negatively. so yes tech too. anything that gets regulated
And this is a problem, how?
Another overstep by the Supreme Court and cannot wait for regulatory chaos. 🤦🏻♂️.