Yes! Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
We still have John Roberts.........
If RBG croaks Trump should pick a conservative woman for SCOTUS nominee. Let’s see the left pull this sex assault BS on a woman. Use some haggard guy who talks like he’s high on heroin: “And then she laid on top of me boo hoo hoo” “Men are to be believed!”
We are not free yet
Still have state and local which can be more commie then the feds any day of the week.
This may be President Trump’s greatest gift to America—packing the courts with judges who understand the difference between their job description and Congress’.
He flipped the 9th, for cryin out loud. Maybe they will lose their “most over turned court in America” title (>80%).
What I don’t get is how Turtle is pushing the President’s appointees through. I know he’s using some kind of lethal force, but, what? Hate on Turtle all you want, but I do acknowledge his craftiness and cunning when he’s working for the right team.
It’s impossible to exaggerate the importance of this issue. Countless federal laws, from the Clean Air Act to the Affordable Care Act, lay out a broad federal policy and delegate to an agency the power to implement the details of that policy. Under Kavanaugh’s approach, many of these laws are unconstitutional, as are numerous existing regulations governing polluters, health providers, and employers.
In order to get the courts back on track and all government agencies, we need to expose and eviscerate two pernicious and destructive ideas infecting and driving government tyranny; "SETTLED LAW and PRECEDENT".
Liberals 'SET PRECEDENT' in their rulings without the law behind then. Once the 'precedent' is established liberals don't argue law they argue 'precedent'.
Together, 'SETTLED LAW and PRECEDENT' are used to undermine and circumvent written law.
Whenever a liberal talks about 'SETTLED LAW and PRECEDENT' you know they're not citing law. They're citing a liberal narrative.
He won’t talk about the elephant in the living room regarding this concern.
What REALLY scares them is their plan, now in action, to classify Carbon Dioxide as a ‘pollutant’, when that was NEVER INTENDED by the Clean Air Act. If that gets thrown out, then any future president is pretty much handcuffed in turning this country into a shithole nation...and that scares them, big time.
As Brown v Board of Education tossed out decades of settled law.
"Under Kavanaugh’s approach, many of these laws are unconstitutional, as are numerous existing regulations governing polluters, health providers, and employers. A revolution against the regulatory state looms on the horizon, and the biggest losers are likely to be Democrats who hope to regain the White House in 2020."
The Democrats made a serious tactical mistake when they revealed their eagerness to overthrow the government of the USA. Attacking Kavanaugh, Trump, et al. on spurious charges was not smart.
Perhaps a sane Supreme Court will serve as a bulwark against the election fraud that will certainly be rampant in November 2020.
Keep praying.
We’re beginning to see some of the fruit of it.
“Brett Kavanaugh’s latest opinion should terrify Democrats”
—
Hope so - that’s in the job description as far as I’m concerned.
FAR from.
But at least it’s started :)
“Meanwhile, the biggest problem facing Democrats for the foreseeable future is Senate malapportionment.”
There is no “Senate malapportionment”. Each State gets two Senators.
Rolling back decades of liberal-enacted, economy killing federal regulations was the number one reason I voted for Trump. Glad to read this article!
“obsession with a singular issue....”
Liberty?
Don't "diminish" them.....kill them.
Duplicate agencies/departments already exist at the state level. The federal bureaucRATs need to be flipping burgers.
This is the crux of the argument:
“If Congress had enacted a law in the 1970s requiring power plants to use the best emissions reduction technology that existed back then, it could have locked those plants into using technology that is vastly inferior to the methods of reducing emissions that exist today. At the very least, Congress would have struggled to keep abreast of new technology and to update the law as better methods of reducing emissions were invented.”
And it is wrong on all counts. It simple form it suggests that Congress is unable to do - determine exactly the best rule - what an agency like the EPA is asked to do on its own. Yet, they offer no evidence for why Congress is unablwe to do that.
What does the EPA do first? It commissions a study. That takes time no matter who commissions it, and how is it that a Congressional committee is unable to commission the proper study? Of course they could. Then the EPA holds public hearings to get public input. A Congressional committee is certainly able to appoint a group to do that. Then the EPA has a group that looks at everything that was studied and all the public comments and tries to come up with a reasonable explanation. Again, the fact that also takes time does not make it a task Congress cannot arrange.
So, the entire formulation of a “regulation” (extension of a law) is something Congress is fully capable of doing, and is even capable of getting competing opinions in the process instead of relying on a single stable of bureaucrats who think they and they alone know what’s best.
The problem the article does not address that I think needs to be addressed just as badly, goes beyond the formulation of “regulations”; it’s the enforcement powers of the federal agencies. They get to act as policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury all in one, with little recourse to a defendent who is presumed guilty, fined, relieved of property, required to do something or quit doing something, unable to defend themselves with benefit of the courts before any action is taken. The agencies are allowed to act first, reversing the innocent until proven guilty concept, and the business or individual has to sue to undo what the federal agency was allowed to do against them without any trial.
I want the federal agencies to have to go to court and prove their case against an individual or business, and I want them to pay the court costs, for everyone involved, when they lose.
First they describe what he said:
In that opinion, Gorsuch suggested that current law risks giving agencies “unbounded policy choices.” His explanation of what new limits he would impose on federal agencies is vague and it’s hard to find a clear legal rule in the opinion. Nevertheless, Gorsuch writes that a federal law permitting agencies to regulate must be “‘sufficiently definite and precise to enable Congress, the courts, and the public to ascertain’ whether Congress’s guidance has been followed.”
Then Vox purposely mischaracterizes the effect in order to rile up their readers:
Gorsuch, in other words, would give the Republican-controlled Supreme Court a veto power over all federal regulations. That prospect should chill each of the Democratic presidential candidates to the bone. If any of them prevail, their administration would have to seek a permission slip from the Court if it wants to regulate, if Gorsuch’s view holds sway.
WRONG! Gorsuch would require Congress to write laws that are more specific as to how they are to be implemented, especially where major policies with huge cost impacts are concerned. If that was done properly, there would be no "permission slip seeking" necessary. It would be Congress' fault if the laws are written poorly, and the law would be, I surmise, struck down for being too vague. Congress could then revisit the issue to fix it if they are so inclined. But the idea that all regulation would henceforth be subject to approval by the Supreme Court is ludicrous and wrong.
bump
Hoo-Rah!!!
Way past time for Fed.gov to go away and defer to the states as the Founders intended!!