Posted on 01/17/2024 9:01:38 PM PST by SeekAndFind
I wants my democracy back
bttt
The point is Chevron is the result of congressional abrogation of responsibilities, whether intended (corruption) or not (incompetence).
If the Supremes kick Chevron to the curb, a more Constitutionally-aware House Speaker like Mike Johnson might just restore the balance our Founding Fathers knew was critical.
Sorry. I didn't read the thread through to the end. Said the same thing - I just used too many words, (I've been reading Russian authors so I've gotten quite wordy).
USSC also said the ‘forgiveness’ of students loans was not legal, but Biden continues like USSC does NOT exist.
Man there sure were a lot of awful decisions reached by the SCOTUS in the 70s and 80s. Overturning them is one of the big keys to restoring the republic.
I have a hard time believing Roberts will allow the Court to dismantle the administrative state. I’m not sure how, but I expect some narrow ruling, using pretzel logic, that applies only to the fishing industry.
Just another example of why “stare decisis” and over-reliance upon precedent-setting cases has been a disaster. It’s just stupid. Why would you ever want to compound a serious judicial error by locking it in (stare decisis) and then building an ever-shakier legal house of cards upon that flawed foundation (precedent)? To do that is to propagate error through subsequent decisions, which just causes the error to grow and spread, causing ever more damage.
I understand the general need for consistency, and the ability to know that a past ruling can be relied upon in the future, but when a case is brought before a court that challenges the foundation for an existing law, EVERY court should prioritize the original intent of the legislators, or where a constitutional question is at issue, the original intent of the Constitution’s framers, over lazy reliance upon case law.
If some court somewhere had decided that 2+2=5, based upon some lawyer’s “novel” reasoning, and later related cases were decided in favor of that interpretation, upholding it and maybe even expanding it a little further each time, it wouldn’t be surprising to see some much later downstream decision concluding that not only does 2+2=5, but perhaps any two numbers added together equal whatever number one imagines.
We certainly saw that extreme after an activist court “found” a non-existent right to privacy in the Constitution and used it to justify abortion. Over time and subsequent cases, we eventually landed at a woman being able to kill her child at any point in the pregnancy, even after the child was born alive, and for any reason whatsoever. And the miracle it took to stop any further downward slide toward hell and finally end the legal foundation on the federal level for abortion was a court that finally decided to just read the Constitution and forget about precedent or stare decisis.
I am convinced that case law and stare decisis are more often than not the devil’s playthings. The two combined provide a leftist activist court with the perfect tools to corrupt the original intent of legislation and then open the door for later courts to expand the original evil as far as they want to take it. All they have to do is “find” some non-existent principle, as in Roe v. Wade, and then “evolve” the case law over time by pushing a little farther with each subsequent decision, creating a one-way ratchet toward the desired leftist outcome. That would not be possible if later courts examining related cases did their own examination of the relevant legislators’ original intent EVERY TIME, and gave very little weight to a previous court’s reasoning. In fact, doing so would serve as a quality check on previous decisions. Using my previous example, it would be like actually doing the math to test whether a previous court’s determination that 2+2=5 is correct, instead of taking that court’s word for it. It would be highly likely most courts would discover that it actually equals 4, thereby stopping the 2+2=5 propagation chain dead in its tracks.
OK, dead horse thoroughly beaten. Sorry about the repetitiveness, but the insanity of this legal practice really ticks me off.
40 years, eh?
It’s only taken 50 years to toss RvW back to the states.
Ping for later
In many ways, it works very well for legislators. They relieve themselves of all responsibility "not my fault, the administrators did it" and gain the power to push for mercy in individual cases, with their access to the regulators "see what I did for you!" (Constituent services).
This can if the justices rule constitutionally, change America for the good. This along with the election of DJT, could result in congress being made to govern rather than letting some faceless swamp denizen produce administrative decisions. That is not how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to work.
Hope this goes the right way.
Just another example of why “stare decisis”...
“hich—let’s be honest—means boosting Republican presidents and hobbling Democratic ones.”
I don’t see the problem.
L
The alphebet federal agencies have no business telling us all how to live
<>We wouldn’t be in this mess if Congress hadn’t gotten lazy and sloughed off law-making to the executive branch.<>
With Chevron in mind, Congress these past 40 years has purposely used the term, “as the secretary shall direct” thousands of times to slough off responsibility to the admin/deep state.
That way, abuse of their constituents is the fault of the exec branch and not Congress.
Post-Chevron, instead of supplanting Congress or the exec branch in the interpretation of vague laws, I hope the Scotus says that vague laws are simply not enforceable.
THAT would cripple the Leftists that infest the exec agencies.
First Chevron.
Then Wickard.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.