|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 2 |
Written by Roberts.
EPA exceeded its authority.
Be not weary in well doing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,625 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,625 Likes: 1 |
THis one is a BIG one. The EPA is another of those governmental "self-licking ice cream cones that needs to go away.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,701 Likes: 6
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,701 Likes: 6 |
The way life should be.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 28,184 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 28,184 Likes: 3 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,872 Likes: 5
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,872 Likes: 5 |
How long before all the leftist crybabies start to wail harder about how conservatives hate the environment/nature/earth?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 2 |
Oh the BURN.... (b) This is a major questions case. EPA claimed to discover an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely used, statute designed as a gap filler. That discovery allowed it to adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined to enact itself. Given these circumstances, there is every reason to “hesitate before concluding that Congress” meant to confer on EPA the authority it claims under Section 111(d). B SCOTUS did not make any ruling on Chevron deference, which many of us hoped that they would. OTOH, the reasoning in this case does not address Chevron. Maybe they have decided to quietly ignore it???
Be not weary in well doing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,758
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,758 |
How long before all the leftist crybabies start to wail harder about how conservatives hate the environment/nature/earth? I’m sure they already are! Thank God, a few good rulings have been made by SCOTUS.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,801 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,801 Likes: 23 |
Oh the BURN.... (b) This is a major questions case. EPA claimed to discover an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely used, statute designed as a gap filler. That discovery allowed it to adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined to enact itself. Given these circumstances, there is every reason to “hesitate before concluding that Congress” meant to confer on EPA the authority it claims under Section 111(d). B SCOTUS did not make any ruling on Chevron deference, which many of us hoped that they would. OTOH, the reasoning in this case does not address Chevron. Maybe they have decided to quietly ignore it??? That sucks.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,302 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,302 Likes: 1 |
"...A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box..." Frederick Douglass, 1867
( . Y . )
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 2 |
The EPA's view of its authority, Roberts writes, "was not only unprecedented; it also affected a 'fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from [one sort of] scheme of . . . regulation' into an entirely different kind."
Be not weary in well doing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 18,345 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 18,345 Likes: 1 |
Pretty consequential term. Will be talked about for decades.
Seems like Chevron is going to die by a thousand cuts if the court retains it's current makeup.
Regarding Biden v Texas, wasn't the "remain in Mexico" dealeo by executive order? If so, even as I agree with it, I believe that presidents be able to resend previous orders?
Carpe' Scrotum
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 10,844 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 10,844 Likes: 3 |
Oh the BURN.... (b) This is a major questions case. EPA claimed to discover an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely used, statute designed as a gap filler. That discovery allowed it to adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined to enact itself. Given these circumstances, there is every reason to “hesitate before concluding that Congress” meant to confer on EPA the authority it claims under Section 111(d). B SCOTUS did not make any ruling on Chevron deference, which many of us hoped that they would. OTOH, the reasoning in this case does not address Chevron. Maybe they have decided to quietly ignore it??? That sucks. Yep. Was hoping for at least something addressing this either way.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,627
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,627 |
How long before all the leftist crybabies start to wail harder about how conservatives hate the environment/nature/earth? You'd think the lefties would have treated Richard Nixon a little better since he signed OSHA and the EPA into law.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,412 Likes: 3
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,412 Likes: 3 |
SCOTUS did not make any ruling on Chevron deference, which many of us hoped that they would. OTOH, the reasoning in this case does not address Chevron. Maybe they have decided to quietly ignore it??? That is my hope here.
To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.-Richard Henry Lee
Endowment Member NRA, Life Member SAF-GOA, Life-Board Member, West TN Director TFA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,412 Likes: 3
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,412 Likes: 3 |
From Alito's and Gorsuch's concurrence opinion:
"To resolve today’s case the Court invokes the major questions doctrine. Under that doctrine’s terms, administrative agencies must be able to point to “ ‘clear congressional authorization’ ” when they claim the power to make decisions of vast “ ‘economic and political significance.’ ” Ante, at 17, 19. Like many parallel clear-statement rules in our law, this one operates to protect foundational constitutional guarantees. I join the Court’s opinion and write to offer some additional observations about the doctrine on which it rests...
The major questions doctrine works in much the same way to protect the Constitution’s separation of powers. Ante, at 19. In Article I, “the People” vested “[a]ll” federal “legislative powers . . . in Congress.” Preamble; Art. I, § 1. As Chief Justice Marshall put it, this means that “important subjects . . . must be entirely regulated by the legislature itself,” even if Congress may leave the Executive “to act under such general provisions to fill up the details.” Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 42–43 (1825). Doubtless, what qualifies as an important subject and what constitutes a detail may be debated. See, e.g., Gundy v. United States, 588 U. S. , –_ (2019) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 4–6); id., at – (GORSUCH, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 10–12). But no less than its rules against retroactive legislation or protecting sovereign immunity, the Constitution’s rule vesting federal legislative power in Congress is “vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution.” Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 692 (1892).
It is vital because the framers believed that a republic—a thing of the people—would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable “ministers.” The Federalist No. 11, p. 85 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). From time to time, some have questioned that assessment. But by vesting the lawmaking power in the people’s elected representatives, the Constitution sought to ensure “not only that all power [w]ould be derived from the people,” but also “that those [e]ntrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people.” Id., No. 37, at 227 (J. Madison). The Constitution, too, placed its trust not in the hands of “a few, but [in] a number of hands,” ibid., so that those who make our laws would better reflect the diversity of the people they represent and have an “immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people.” Id., No. 52, at 327 (J. Madison). Today, some might describe the Constitution as having designed the federal lawmaking process to capture the wisdom of the masses. See P. Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? 502–503 (2014).
To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.-Richard Henry Lee
Endowment Member NRA, Life Member SAF-GOA, Life-Board Member, West TN Director TFA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 2 |
Ruling was 6-3, with Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissenting.
Be not weary in well doing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 10,844 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 10,844 Likes: 3 |
Ruling was 6-3, with Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissenting. There. Seems. To be a pattern here. If there’s anything that one can rely on it would the votes of these 3.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,693
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,693 |
Breyer last day as a judge His replacement is even worse
if a man speaks, and there isn't a woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,190 Likes: 33
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,190 Likes: 33 |
Denying Cert to the AB5 case out of California - that has major ramifications. Expect the cost of goods to go up as the cost of getting them off LA/LB is about to shoot up. Volume will move to other ports - Seattle, Vancouver, Miami, Houston, Savannah etc.
Me
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 2 |
Sad to see that AB5 was denied cert. It's a nasty bit of work.
In general, California has punitive employment laws. We had a contractor working for us who lived in California years ago, and he was clearly on a 1099 deal. He did no work in CA at all. When his contract was up, he filed for unemployment. What a mess. CA agreed with him, and wanted us to pay his claim. Administrative law judge ruled there was no nexus, and hence no liability for us, after $2000 in attorney fees. After that, we pretty much quit using CA talent on our jobs and put a clause in our contract that our contractors were strictly liable for all costs related to resolving improper unemployment claims. Net result, less work for Californians. I don't suppose that is what they intended to accomplish??
As you point out, the freight will move to other, more friendly ports.
Last edited by denton; 06/30/22.
Be not weary in well doing.
|
|
|
|
636 members (1minute, 160user, 12344mag, 219DW, 219 Wasp, 1moredeer, 68 invisible),
2,812
guests, and
1,186
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,851
Posts18,497,013
Members73,979
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|