Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McTraveller]

So - how did the US function in the 200 years before the Chevron ruling then? I feel like something is missing. I'm fairly ignorant on this matter.

Esp. since people are screaming that FDA, EPA, etc. all won't be able to function with the overturn. But those agencies were created and functioned before that ruling... again, what am I missing?

[Maximum Spin]

So - how did the US function in the 200 years before the Chevron ruling then? I feel like something is missing. I'm fairly ignorant on this matter.

Esp. since people are screaming that FDA, EPA, etc. all won't be able to function with the overturn. But those agencies were created and functioned before that ruling... again, what am I missing?

You're not missing anything, you're being lied to. All this decision does is put the onus on Congress to decide the limits of the powers it gives to federal agencies. Chevron deference was a legal principle that courts would defer to - meaning, believe - a federal agency's own interpretation of its powers, rather than looking at the law Congress enacted directly. Now the enabling law takes precedence and if Congress wants to expand an agency's power it has to do the job itself. Agencies functioned before Chevron by staying within the letter of whatever law delegated power to each agency.

Since Chevron was never a block against lawsuits (like, for example, qualified immunity actually is), but only a principle courts used to decide them, this won't result in agencies or courts being inundated with suits any more than before. There probably will be a brief glut of lawsuits while issues which were previously decided on Chevron grounds get overturned, but that'll settle down fast as it's just a matter of revisiting old decisions.

[McTraveller]

Sorry I guess my intent wasn't clear - I was basically relating that I don't understand why people think this decision is a catastrophe, because clearly the agencies were able to function before the ruling, so claiming things will break when we went back to the earlier state, clearly can't be catastrophic.

[martinuzz]

Jesus Christ of fucking Nazareth. I hope the democrats get a new candidate soon. I would hate to see Trump win. Please, get a non-totally-demented candidate democrats. This debate was shocking. Biden is too old, sad to say but true.

[Maximum Spin]

Sorry I guess my intent wasn't clear - I was basically relating that I don't understand why people think this decision is a catastrophe, because clearly the agencies were able to function before the ruling, so claiming things will break when we went back to the earlier state, clearly can't be catastrophic.

I'm suggesting that people are just promoting the idea that this is a catastrophe for views and clicks because some people will fall for it.

[Folly]

The New York Times has now called for Biden to step down.

[Lord Shonus]

Given their constant "we talked to people in this MAGA diner, and this is why the entire country supports Trump" coverage, this should be no surprise.

[dragdeler]

Joe striden, gucci rizz, icecream bliss

[nenjin]

https://vxtwitter.com/tyson_whelan/status/1807784600271471100

It's official. Committing a crime while in office isn't a crime now if you claim it was part of your presidential duties.

[McTraveller]

I hope the tenuous thread of proving it's actually part of the office, not just a claim that it is, can remain intact.

I would hope, for instance, that if an action exceeded what is allowed by the Constitution, such a claim would not hold.

The little I let myself read on this ruling, is that there is an annoying amount of ambiguity still in the ruling; along the lines of "I'll know it when I see it" kind of criteria.

Either way, it's a good way to set the system up for all kinds of shenanigans.

[da_nang]

So.

Biden can order someone to assassinate Trump right now.

He'd be completely immune, because it's either a core power (absolute immunity) or an official act (presumptive immunity). Furthermore, in the case of the latter, the presumption will never be lifted because the evidence needed to lift it will be inadmissible because it would "probe official acts".

I fucking hope I'm misreading the opinion.

[Maximum Spin]

So.

Biden can order someone to assassinate Trump right now.

He'd be completely immune, because it's either a core power (absolute immunity) or an official act (presumptive immunity). Furthermore, in the case of the latter, the presumption will never be lifted because the evidence needed to lift it will be inadmissible because it would "probe official acts".

I fucking hope I'm misreading the opinion.

Yes, you are misreading the opinion. The Court pretty clearly explained what official acts are, and they do not in any way include assassinations. All the people who have been saying so on the internet are, essentially, idiots. Official acts must be within the context of the President's Article II powers, including powers Congress has assigned to the Executive (and thus, by the President's Article II authority, at the President's discretion). For example, the instances the Court specifically called out as definitely official acts were those in which Trump was talking to his direct subordinates in the Executive about the official responsibilities of those subordinates, which is obviously within the role of the head of the Executive. The distinction between absolute immunity and presumptive immunity here was that presumptive immunity applies to "conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress", which Congress could in principle constitutionally criminalize without violating separation of powers. If Congress had (it has not) passed a law granting the Executive broad power to assassinate American citizens, then Biden would get presumptive immunity for using that power to assassinate Trump, which might then be dispelled if, say, Congress had specifically excepted using the power for political reasons and evidence were presented that Biden's assassination of Trump had been politically motivated. Such a thing hasn't come to pass, though, and is very unlikely to.

[nenjin]

which Congress could in principle constitutionally criminalize without violating separation of powers.

Show of hands: who finds that statement preposterous given the era we live in, the composition of Congress and their ethics? At the 11th hour you're going to stand by "well Congress could do the right thing"?

[Maximum Spin]

which Congress could in principle constitutionally criminalize without violating separation of powers.

Show of hands: who finds that statement preposterous given the era we live in, the composition of Congress and their ethics? At the 11th hour you're going to stand by "well Congress could do the right thing"?

You don't have to like the Constitution, but the courts have to follow it.

[nenjin]

Lol, do they? This has nothing to do with me not liking the rules as written, and everything to do with the powers that be having no respect for them.