11 recommendations |
SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the UnionEffects not limited to cybersecurity. | |
|
 |  IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA ·Comcast XFINITY
8 recommendations |
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the UnionI'd like to see the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles dismantled. They keep changing the inspection regulations without the approval of the legislature. First they put cameras inside the inspection stations, next they make it so that if you are late on your inspection they back date the new sticker to the when the last sticker expired, not 12 months from the new sticker. They should need approval from the state legislature to do this nonsense. Where I grew up we did not have inspections. | |
|
| |
7 recommendations |
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the Unionsaid by IowaCowboy:They keep changing the inspection regulations without the approval of the legislature. And that's what people are missing. The legislature--as elected officials, expressing the will of the people--is the proper route for all of this. But as a society, we've had the heat turned up slowly but surely under the pot, to the point where most people assume it's supposed to be this hot and that unelected career bureaucrats can have whatever say they want. It's OK to have the bureaucrats, but what they say MUST be presented to the legislators, who can then make whatever laws they like. Shortcutting the legislators--shortcutting the will of the people--is criminal. | |
|
| | KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
1 recommendation |
to IowaCowboy
I am not seeing the issue with cameras inside the inspection stations, How is that different from cameras at the Stop&Shop? | |
|
| |  SeleniaGentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR
3 recommendations |
to IowaCowboy
That's what happens when the government tries to keep us safe. They end up outsourcing the effort to private enterprise and then it ends up being implemented in some convoluted way to make the company responsible money. I remember when some inspection stations closed years back because they could not afford the new equipment that was suddenly being mandated, and of course it only had one distributor that was free to charge whatever it wanted. What could possibly go wrong?
Massachusetts is the biggest nightmare going if you like classic cars. Because the law specifies that certain parts have to be original but the original parts are not made anymore, nor would it be beneficial in any way to fit it with the original parts, over more modern revisions that probably score better on emissions tests, were they to be tested. They do have that saving grace that they don't require an emissions test. But the safety inspection is very easy to fail with a perfectly safe vehicle that was even mildly modified. I remember having to lock the EEPROM on my 3000 GT when it came inspection time. That actually tanked both the performance and fuel economy 😂 I never could wait to reflash it to unlock it again. | |
|
| SD6
join:2005-03-26
Pittsburgh, PA
1 edit
3 recommendations |
to Reticent
said by Reticent:Effects not limited to cybersecurity. And not unexpected to those people who follow federal agencies. | |
|
|  r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
-5 recommendations |
to Reticent
This is another unconstitutional action by this corrupt supreme court.
Congress, Senate, the President already gave the authority to these entities. Now the supreme court is overriding our laws and legislating from the bench. They are ignoring the constitution and overriding constitutional legislation that is passed by other branches.
The supreme court is taking away an agency's legal authority for investigation and enforcement that is their legal granted right in accordance with our constitution.
The supreme court has no right to change the "interpretation" and definition of laws passed by congress.
If our supreme court is going to give themselves this veto power, not based on the constitution, then we need to start electing the supreme court justices ourselves with a direct vote of the people. They have turned the court from constitutional to political. | |
|
| |
9 recommendations |
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the Unionsaid by r81984:This is another unconstitutional action by this corrupt supreme court. by definition, it is not. said by r81984:The supreme court has no right to change the "interpretation" and definition of laws passed by congress. WTF? OMG! Please tell me you're a bot. A poorly programmed one at that. Because that sentence above just has me, and anyone who's actually read the Constitution, absolutely slack-jawed flabbergasted at the ignorance that it exposes. | |
|
| | | r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
3 edits
-3 recommendations |
r81984
Premium Member
2024-Jul-3 1:13 pm
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the Union100% is unconstitutional as they are overriding laws passed by congress/president not based on the constitution, but their own personal political agendas. They have literally given themselves legislative veto power over the laws passed by congress.
It is strange that you are OK with that. You clearly have no idea what the constitutions says or means. The Supreme court only has constitutional authority to declare the legislative or executive branch is in violation of the Constitutional only. They have no authority to have judicial review on their personal opinions, feelings, or political agenda, only against the US Constitution.
Essentially you have the US Supreme Court invaliding constitutionally legal laws passed by the legislative and executive branches.
Per the Constitution, only congress can determine the jurisdiction of federal courts, not the supreme court. The constitution also only gives you the right to a jury trial for criminal acts by a person, not regulatory acts by companies as those enforcement rules are set by congress. Now everything is being legislated by the corrupt supreme court.
The sad part is corrupt states are now purposely passing laws they 100% know are unconstitutional as they know this corrupt supreme court will allow it. Our constitution no longer exists per this current supreme court. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |  DocDrewHow can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900
4 edits
12 recommendations |
to r81984
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the Unionsaid by r81984:100% is unconstitutional as they are overriding laws passed by congress/president not based on the constitution, but their own personal political agendas. They have literally given themselves legislative veto power over the laws passed by congress.
It is strange that you are OK with that. You clearly have no idea what the constitutions says or means. The Supreme court only has constitutional authority to declare the legislative or executive branch is in violation of the Constitutional only. They have no authority to have judicial review on their personal opinions, feelings, or political agenda, only against the US Constitution.
Essentially you have the US Supreme Court invaliding constitutionally legal laws passed by the legislative and executive branches. That has been the Supreme Court's mandate from the very beginning. They're the 3 leg of the government triangle, appointed with the power to review and overrule Congressional legislation and Executive orders. The judges aren't robots, personal feelings will always color their judgement when interpreting the laws. Some judges interpret more as literal "laws as written", while others interpret more "laws as intended" or "spirit of the law". That is why their are confirmation hearings. That is why it's important who is picked and what their case record shows. That is also why Supreme Court Justices have lifetime appointments, so the next President and legislature can't just boot them out because they disagree with their politics and rulings. 
(2024-07-03 11_56_27-The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court)
If so inclined, Congress and the President can always pass new legislation and orders that don't conflict with the courts rulings.
Did you totally miss that part about the Supreme Court in high school Government class?
| |
|
| | | | |
8 recommendations |
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the Unionsaid by DocDrew:If so inclined, Congress and the President can always pass new legislation and orders that don't conflict with the courts rulings. This right here. Congress passes laws; the President signs them into law. If he doesn't, Congress has a mechanism to override that. Elected officials doing the will of the people and all. And the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of whether or not those dutifully passed laws fit within the Constitution. And the people, if they see fit, have a mechanism to amend the Constitution--which then is the ABSOLUTE FINAL say. This is all the will of the people. Unelected permanent bureacrats are not the will of the people. said by DocDrew:Did you totally miss that part about the Supreme Court in high school Government class? I've been asking myself that of many people lately. | |
|
| | | | | | r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
1 edit
-6 recommendations |
r81984
Premium Member
2024-Jul-3 9:37 pm
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the UnionFalse, congress only needs to pass laws that don't conflict with the US constitution per what the constitution says. They have every right to pass whatever they want, broad or specific, as long as it does not violate explicit rules and rights written in the constitution. They have that authority from the constitution. The US Supreme Court has no right to veto anything unless it goes against the exact words in the constitution.
The constitution does not prevent congress from passing broad laws and delegating broad authority to government agencies for regulatory enforcement. They have that right. Congress is also in charge of the federal courts, except the Supreme Court, per the constitution. So congress can setup authority to be split between federal courts and regulatory agency courts as that is their right.
The constitution does not say you have the right to be in a normal federal court nor does a company have the right to have a jury trial for regulatory penalties.
I can't believe that magas are against the constitution. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | |
7 recommendations |
to r81984
said by r81984:100% is unconstitutional The Constitution itself says otherwise. The separation of powers exists for a reason. I'm not sure what you think should happen within the law. | |
|
| | | | | r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
-9 recommendations |
r81984
Premium Member
2024-Jul-3 10:10 pm
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the UnionFalse. Supreme Court only has authority to enforce things explicity written in the constitution and they have no authority for anything else. | |
|
| | | | | | SeleniaGentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR
3 recommendations |
Selenia
Premium Member
2024-Jul-4 3:29 pm
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the UnionYou were right in one declaration in your previous post but you're wrong on this. The Supreme Court has the authority to determine whether a proposed law is constitutional and can go on the books. They also have the purview to review laws on the books and determine whether they are within the constitution. That's the biggest part of the courts job. It is the executive branches authority to enforce the laws as they are written on the books. But the court determines whether the law is constitutional as written. | |
|
| | | | | | |
2 recommendations |
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the Unionsaid by Selenia:You were right in one declaration in your previous post but you're wrong on this. The Supreme Court has the authority to determine whether a proposed law is constitutional and can go on the books. They also have the purview to review laws on the books and determine whether they are within the constitution. That's the biggest part of the courts job. It is the executive branches authority to enforce the laws as they are written on the books. But the court determines whether the law is constitutional as written. And if the people think it should be otherwise, the people have a defined mechanism to change that by changing the Constitution and therefore, by definition, taking the matter ouf of the hands of the Supreme Court. If it's Constitutional, it's Constitutional. Period. And that mechanism is managed by--who else?--the legislature, acting on behalf of the People and their expressed interests. As always, if you don't like something, it comes down to expressing your wishes to your elected officials in the legislature. The unelected bureacrats in the Department of Education (for example) are absolutely NOT any part of this structure. And the Supreme Court cannot make law. They can only evaluate law in the context of the Constitution. So if you don't like it, engage your legislators to change the Constitution. | |
|
| | |
-1 recommendation |
to adam1991
And here we want to restrict SOME convicted felons from voting. I don't think it's broad enough. | |
|
| | | | SeleniaGentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR
3 edits
4 recommendations |
Selenia
Premium Member
2024-Jul-4 3:37 pm
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the Unionwell, I'm kind of moderate on that issue. I think it should be required that you screw up pretty bad to not have your voice be heard anymore. It's a slippery slope when you start to choose which voices can be represented in government, based on past deeds. And who determines which one of those deeds are the forbidden deeds? That's when the government stops representing the people as a whole, and honestly, I don't think we are very far from that point. There is some pretty ridiculous stuff that is classified as a felony in certain states. And if you can't trust the government to classify what is a felony by severity effectively, how can you expect them to be neutral in choosing who can still vote and who can't?
Start getting Into some of the white collar felonies and sometimes people who are otherwise squeaky clean can get accused of some pretty serious charges for what amounts to a mistake. Especially when it comes to things like securities. And don't get me started on drug charges. Those can be some of the most ridiculous laws on the book. Experimentation Is typical when growing up but some of these drug laws don't differentiate between somebody who is harming society and somebody who was just curious a few times. Remember that a few grams of legal marijuana was a felony in many states and still is in a few states, but completely legal elsewhere. Arbitralily, some of these people still cannot vote even though their activity is currently completely legal in the same locality, because of their previous felony conviction. | |
|
| | | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the Unionsaid by Selenia:well, I'm kind of moderate on that issue. I think it should be required that you screw up pretty bad to not have your voice be heard anymore. It's a slippery slope when you start to choose which voices can be represented in government, based on past deeds. And who determines which one of those deeds are the forbidden deeds? That's when the government stops representing the people as a whole, and honestly, I don't think we are very far from that point. There is some pretty ridiculous stuff that is classified as a felony in certain states. And if you can't trust the government to classify what is a felony by severity effectively, how can you expect them to be neutral in choosing who can still vote and who can't?
Start getting Into some of the white collar felonies and sometimes people who are otherwise squeaky clean can get accused of some pretty serious charges for what amounts to a mistake. Especially when it comes to things like securities. And don't get me started on drug charges. Those can be some of the most ridiculous laws on the book. Experimentation Is typical when growing up but some of these drug laws don't differentiate between somebody who is harming society and somebody who was just curious a few times. Remember that a few grams of legal marijuana was a felony in many states and still is in a few states, but completely legal elsewhere. Arbitralily, some of these people still cannot vote even though their activity is currently completely legal in the same locality, because of their previous felony conviction. Preach. | |
|
| | | | |
-1 recommendation |
to Selenia
And there's the problem. White collar felonies vs someone taking a life on purpose. A "felon" is a felon if you use firearm ownership as an example. Should someone cooking the books loose their right to vote and/or own a firearm (I'm not talking about HBiden or Trump). If you use a firearm in the commission of a crime, you should not own a firearm. Along those same lines, if you use your car to kill someone, you should never be allowed to drive/own a car? It can get crazy but I'm onboard with the SCOTUS reviewing past decisions to see if they fit in todays society. Lets be real.. things change, peoples views change, seasons change... and so on. Why some here are getting their panties in a twist over this and all they want to do is go after the justices on the right. Who's to say the ones on the left are not wrong? I'm sure if the left tilted the scale to push narratives or agendas of the left, people on the right would be having a shit fit. But here we are. We put our trust in our elected officials and justices to do the RIGHT thing and the reasons behind it. It sometimes doesn't work out that way. Give it time, this change could be changed 10-20 years down the road, as we have seen. | |
|
| | DocDrewHow can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900
4 edits
4 recommendations |
to r81984
said by r81984:The supreme court is taking away an agency's legal authority for investigation and enforcement that is their legal granted right in accordance with our constitution. The irony for you is this Supreme Court ruling returns the agencies’ authority back to its original allowance. The Supreme Court gave agencies the extra authority over defining the meanings of ambiguous laws when they ruled on what became the Chevron Deference in 1984. It was not explicitly stated in the Constitution or in the legislation that agencies had that authority until the Supreme Court ruled they did. For the 200+ years before that ruling, courts had the final say on the meaning of ambiguous laws and how they were applied. The main part of the 1984 ruling… » lawblog.justia.com/2012/ ··· cisions/said by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) :A government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous situations as long as its interpretation is reasonable. The Supreme Court just overturned their own 1984 ruling. No laws clearly stating an agencies’ investigative or enforcement powers are being subverted. | |
|
| | |
2 recommendations |
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the UnionAsk a legislator to define "reasonable", and then "interpretation", and then "clear". Then ask lawyers.  | |
|
| | | | DocDrewHow can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900
2 recommendations |
DocDrew
Premium Member
2024-Jul-4 4:34 pm
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the Unionsaid by Reticent:Ask a legislator to define "reasonable", and then "interpretation", and then "clear".
Then ask lawyers. Then you realize most legislators have law degrees and many had been practicing lawyers. They got into politics to “fix” laws and policies they didn’t like and/or it was more lucrative. | |
|
| ncted
join:2010-10-25
Durham, NC
10 recommendations |
to Reticent
SCOTUS keeps telling Congress to do their job (i.e. not write vague laws), and congress keeps ignoring them. What a great system we've got here. | |
|
| | r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
-6 recommendations |
r81984
Premium Member
2024-Jul-3 9:31 pm
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the UnionCongress can pass vague laws with broad powers as long as they don't break anything explicitly not allowed per the constitution.
The supreme court legally only has power to override things that violate the constitution. This Supreme Court is ignoring the constitution and legislating from the bench base on their personal political agendas. It is insane how corrupt they are. | |
|
| mmmdonutsno regerts
join:2011-02-28
Raleigh, NC
9 recommendations |
to Reticent
The SCOTUS reining in Federal Agency overreach? Say it ain't so! | |
|
| | IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA ·Comcast XFINITY
3 recommendations |
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the Unionsaid by mmmdonuts:The SCOTUS reining in Federal Agency overreach? Say it ain't so! I’d like to see the SCOTUS limit the Social Security Administration’s ability to recoup overpayments, yeah I can see them being able to when there is fraud or misrepresentation but they’ve tried to collect overpayments off of beneficiaries due to agency error or off of beneficiaries that were not responsible for the overpayment (such as another beneficiary on the earnings record causing the overpayment), example when my grandfather died at 40 of a heart attack and his children got Social Security survivor’s benefits and my uncle stopped attending school and didn’t report it they docked my mom and my younger aunt’s benefits to reclaim the overpayment as opposed to pursuing collection action against my uncle who caused the overpayment. You would think this would violate the due process rights my mother and my aunt. | |
|
| | |
4 recommendations |
Re: SCOTUS' Chevron deference reversal continues deconstruction of the Unionsaid by IowaCowboy:I’d like to see the SCOTUS limit the Social Security Administration’s ability to recoup overpayments why? Anyway, that's not the role of the SCOTUS. Talk to your legislators. I really wish more people would take civics education. And read the Constitution. | |
|
| |
r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
-6 recommendations |
r81984
Premium Member
2024-Jul-3 1:23 pm
FCC wants your help to decide if T-Mobile should be allowed to buy fiber intA wireless company owning a fiber company can easily be seen as a conflict of interest.
You have to trust that the wireless company is not going to make negative decisions for the fiber side in terms of coverage because it could hurt their wireless business.
But other ISP own wireless and physical media internet lines like comcast and att.
So unless you are going to break up all the other companies, you cant stop T-Mobile from doing the same thing.
The largest conflict of interest is having media companies/content creators own our ISPs like with comcast or att/directv as history has shown that media companies directly make negative decisions against ISP customers to protect their media business from competition.
Solve that conflict first, see how the industry acts, before you go after ISPs that own both wired and wireless. The FCC really has no reason to block TMobile from being both wired and wireless from buying another company. | |
|
| |
|
|
