[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

[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.

[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.

[SuperLuminal]

Some good news...

[itsahoot]

In a decision that should have significant implications for the modern internet era, the Supreme Court affirmed that just because someone receives a license to operate, doesn’t prevent it from deciding what to publish.

This ruling is no victory, it was to preempt any attack on Google, YouTube and FaceBook.