Posted on 06/11/2024 12:10:46 PM PDT by fwdude
You beat me to it.
Lobbyists do look after their own.
My fervent hope is that, after Chevron is destroyed, Wickard v. Filburn can be addressed. You want a single case that extends the power of the Fed.gov, this is it - it basically stated that the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Clause was effectively unlimited, so long as the Feds could prove even the tiniest indirect impact on it from any action that took place wholly within a single state. In that case, it was ruled that a farmer growing food on his own farm, ONLY to feed his family, had a negative effect upon the price of agricultural products across state lines. After that, there were no limits on federal power, and they greedily seized it from the states as quickly as they could.
Bury Chevron, then kill off Wickard.
The most consequential would be the destruction of Chevron deference.
Without it, the pen and phone aren’t doing their thing anymore.
are they set to rule on WvF?
The Court needs more Justices to get its work completed sooner.
3-3-1-2
“are they set to rule on WvF?”
—————-
No, no one has even filed a case to my knowledge. But winning Chevron is absolutely one of the key prerequisites necessary to have a real shot at Wickard. They are both horrible over-reaches of federal authority, completely inconsistent with the word and spirit of the Constitution, but to overturn existing precedent you need to establish a very firm foundation and then build on it to show its logical and Constitutional inconsistencies.
If it doesn’t tend to lean in the rat favor they will be screaming to pack the court
“And, I think they are going to rule the Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge FDA on the mifepristone approval.”
_____
I was right on that prediction. We will see how I do on the remainder of the cases. Another prediction day tomorrow. We may get the bump stock then.
We may also get Rahimi tomorrow. It’s the only undecided case from the November sitting.
U.S. v. Rahimi, No. 22-915 [Arg: 11.7.2023]
Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.
Great I thought they ruled on the bump stocks today?
“Great I thought they ruled on the bump stocks today?”
No. No ruling yet on the bump stock ban. Another judge ruled against the ATF’s pistol brace regulations today, so you may be confusing the two.
The left is actually doing good things for the Second Amendment. They keep pushing more and more for stricter regulations and federal courts are ruling against them, further solidifying our Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment foundations that are filing the lawsuits and taking these cases to higher courts and eventually SCOTUS should be commended and supported.
They may also issue the Moore tax case tomorrow. It is from the December ruling and is another important case on which there has been very little discussion in mainstream media.
Moore v. U.S., No. 22-800 [Arg: 12.5.2023]
Issue(s): Whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.
does this Moore issue have to do with Biden trying to tax our unrealized gains in our retirement accounts?
“does this Moore issue have to do with Biden trying to tax our unrealized gains in our retirement accounts?”
No. I believe this has to do with a couple that owned shares in a foreign business and were taxed on unrealized gains although they had never received any funds from their investment. However, this case and the court’s decision could have ramifications in the future in regards to retirement accounts and other investments.
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.