The Supreme Court Clinches Multiple Wins for Liberty

Townhall.com ^ | July 12, 2019 | James Burling

[usconservative]

Justice Kagan, writing for the Court, said in essence, “not so fast.” While deference may be appropriate in some cases, it’s not appropriate in all. From now on, the justices held, the courts must examine all the facts and circumstances before deciding to defer to an agency’s judgment over what its regulations mean. While this wasn’t a complete takedown of deference, it should prove to be a pretty effective body slam. Or, as one justice put it, deference has been “zombified.”

Here's the beautiful thing in Kagan's language: whether or not she knows it, she just made a clear and cogent case against Stare Decisis.

[MichaelCorleone]

THIS is what we like to hear!

Now, let’s build on that; get our ‘mojo’ going.

Very exciting...

[MayflowerMadam]

“...held that ‘critical habitat’ has to contain habitat. And, if the frog can’t survive on the land, then calling it critical habitat can’t be supported.”

OMG. THIS was taken to SCOTUS? Simple logic should have nipped this long before that.

[foreverfree]

bump

[1FreeAmerican]

Smart pick-up on that!

[redangus]

The first free speech case doesn’t bode well for free speech or freedom of thought on the Internet. If only government is forbidden from squelching free speech then that means FB, Google, Twitter, etal. are free to become arbiters of what will and will not be allowed to be posted on the ‘Net’. Not a good thing for conservative voices.

[JudgemAll]

I wish the supremes also addressed second amendment issues, the other related poor constitutional right... there will be a deluge of cases if not in the future.

[JudgemAll]

Let us note, however, that if first amendment there is, the government can exert huge pressures through the private media and sector to restrict speech in that realm. The media as a collective does not have freedom of soeech, because its screams do alert huge amount of population at a time.

[Jim W N]

Wonderful except for one thing: the Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch, is NOT legally authorized to make national law.

The Constitution provides that ONLY Congress, the Legislative Branch, may make national law.

Would to God We the People would enforce that and take back state law that the feds have illegally stolen, including anti-abortion laws.

[bert]

The problem is not the three branches. The problem is the sixth estate...... lawyers.

There is no agreement on what is the law. “What” is is left to the tyranny of lawyers to decide.

America has degenerated to a tyranny of lawyers that slop at the trough of no real law

[relictele]

The Court remains drunk on power as even its conservative members demonstrate.

[tiki]

Where I see an in against Twitter and FB is their rules which are not uniformly enforced and it is very obvious.

[Jim W N]

There is no agreement on what is the law.

The Constitution states that IT is the Supreme Law of the Land (Art. VI, Cl 2).

Unless you've abandoned the foundations of our country, there is NO disagreement about what is the overriding law of the land. The fact is, most federal law and acts are ILLEGAL and INVALID.

Patriot's job is to be clear about this and about the Satanic Left's relentless push to destroy the Constitution and destroy America.

Don't forget - the ONLY legal bulwark against the tyranny of the feds is the Constitution. Abandon the Constitution and tyranny is yours.

[Manly Warrior]

Understood, but not true; folks use the mentioned serices as a matter of choice, let the market decide. Okay, google FB Twit et all are leftist statist garbage, but so what, move on to some other service, or voice your opinion so that some favorable source is developed for your consumption.

Having anyone other than the government restricted is not good for conservatives- think of the issue around the equal time on talk radio- a majority conservative market- want the govt/courts to require equal time to the commie loving left on BOT radio or similar?

Anyways;

[Kickass Conservative]

The one question never asked of Judicial Nominees (and Politicians), explain what the term “Shall Not Be Infringed” means.

That term is only mentioned one time in our Bill of Rights. No other Amendment carries the weight of such defined clarification.

[MichaelCorleone]

Very good point.

But, if government is doing their Constitutional duty, they should be protecting our rights, correct?

Things like free speech, freedom of association, unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.

At a minimum they should break up the oligopolies the Bolsheviks are using to (try to) silence and manipulate us.

Maybe I am engaging in wishful thinking here, I don’t know.

Your point is very valid.

[Jumper]

Excellent point and a law should be passes which requires craft3 of a specific law by Congress when faced with cases that set new precedent.

[Amendment10]

”… she was again rebuffed based on a 34-year-old Supreme Court precedent — Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank — which locks the federal courthouse doors to landowners [??? emphasis added]."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

After some scratching, Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank (Williamson) did not lock federal courthouse doors to landowners imo.

I agree with Justice Blackmun’s analysis of Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank.

The Supreme Court properly acknowledged 5th Amendment (5A) protections in Williamson. However, even if the plaintiff had a bonafide complaint against the state, Justice Blackmun had explained that the plaintiff had not worked within the laws of the State of Tennessee to claim 5A protections. Corrections, insights welcome.

The problem imo is that too many “expert" interpretations of the Constitution these days seem to be based on rumors, hearsay and gossip about it, let’s also include post-FDR era institutional indoctrination and attorneys following the money, instead of people studying it for themselves.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[faucetman]

Not necessarily, but you still can’t discriminate.