[yesthatjallen]

Kavanaugh, however, took the unusual step of releasing an opinion explaining why he thought the Court should not hear Paul. His brief opinion praises Justice Neil Gorsuch’s effort to toss out decades of settled law regarding the power of agencies to regulate. Indeed, if anything, Kavanaugh’s Paul opinion suggests that he would restrict federal power even more than Gorsuch would.

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.

[BobL]

“Whenever a liberal talks about ‘SETTLED LAW and PRECEDENT’ you know they’re not citing law. They’re citing a liberal narrative.”

I caught that too with ‘Settled Law’. I suspect that it’s poll tested to show that anyone disrupting ‘Settled Law’ is an Extremist.

So, we might as well get used to hearing that term a lot, particularly if RGB gets replaced next year.

[Sacajaweau]

Please remember....that the Precedent before the Court decided abortion was some kind of right....was that abortion was murder. And murder was a crime.