Scotus - End Chevron Deference

ArticleVBlog ^ | May 13th 2019 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Jacquerie]

Subtitle: She Walked Like a Woman but Talked Like a Man

Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It’s a mixed up muddled up shook up world
Lola - The Kinks 1970

A once respected Supreme Court will decide next month if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can force businesses to allow trannies to cross-dress in their places of employment.¹ On the surface, the issue is straightforward. Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 empower the EEOC to force a funeral home to allow its employees to dress according to their perceived gender? In 2018, a three-judge Sixth Circuit panel held that discrimination on the basis of transgender status is “necessarily” discrimination on the basis of sex and is therefore prohibited.² Well, there you go.

We constitutionalists shake our heads at this dangerous silliness. We wonder whatever happened to Article I lawmaking, freedom of association, religious freedom, and just the plain liberty of an employer to set conditions of employment? If Scotus is uncomfortable deciding EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., (Harris) it has only itself to blame, which Justice Clarence Thomas foretold in 2016. Then, he lambasted his colleagues for choosing "to sit idly by" while bureaucrats were allowed to set the scope of their own regulatory powers free from any meaningful judicial review by the federal courts.³

Harris presents an opportunity for Scotus to begin the restoration of Congressional lawmaking. Judicial deference, subservience to agency interpretations where the enabling law is “silent or ambiguous” gathered steam in a 1984 case, Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In Chevron, Scotus accepts agency regulations as long as they are “based on a permissible construction of the statute,” which in practice means Scotus permits nearly all agency lawmaking.

[dp0622]

What if I say i’m a cat?

Do I get litter and wet/dry food at my desk?

Can I meow at will?

[Ann Archy]

AMEN!!

[Psalm 73]

"Justice Clarence Thomas foretold in 2016. Then, he lambasted his colleagues for choosing "to sit idly by" while bureaucrats were allowed to set the scope of their own regulatory powers free from any meaningful judicial review by the federal courts."

That was a big riff between Thomas and Scalia. Thomas was dead right on this one.

But if Congress would actually do its job, the Chevron ruling would not have even come up in the first place.

[maddog55]

Just stay off the desk and cabinets if not I’ll say I’m a dog.

[Jim Noble]

But if Congress would actually do its job, the Chevron ruling would not have even come up in the first place

If they would actually do their jobs, they would run the risk of having to return to what Howie Carr calls "the Dreaded Private Sector", so I wouldn't bet on that happening any time soon.

[Psalm 73]

"they would run the risk of having to return to....the Dreaded Private Sector"..."

Roger that.
Like they would actually vote for term limits? (Two terms for Senate, three for House).

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

I am a man who identifies as a woman.
As I am a woman, i am choosing to transition to a man.

Additionally, due to my age, I am transitioning to handicap status and will be parking in the blue spaces when I need to.

[dp0622]

lol

[Jacquerie]

Yeah, I was surprised that Scalia went along.

I forget the ballpark number, but Obamacare had hundreds of “as the Secretary shall direct.” Agency lawmaking is an unconstitutional narcotic.