The Robert's Court is about to become the most Activist Court Ever
The Conservative Robert's Supreme Court is about to assign another long-standing precedent, this one which protects the lives of all Americans, to the judicial graveyard along side the devastating Dobb's decision which took away women's federally protected right to privacy.
In 1984, the Court ruled that because judges are NOT experts in anything but the law, if a decision needed to be made regarding the interpretation of an administrative rule, the agency with the experts who made that rule should be deferred to - so long as the rule was reasonable. THAT is about to be overturned by this activist Court leaving all sorts of rules designed to protect your and my life subject to being ruled unconstitutional. This was called the Chevron decision.
For example, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts that Justice Gorsuch's mother, as head of Reagan's EPA and was unceremoniously forced to resign by Reagan, fought very hard to kill. (Gorsuch, at 15, was very upset at the forced resignation of his mother and is now extremely biased against the Chevron Rule and should recuse himself.)
Leonard Leo, head of the Federalist Society which told Trump which people to nominate for the Supreme Court, had two goals in mind: Kill Rowe v Wade and Kill Chevron. With his nominations it seems he may get his dream fulfilled.
If these conservative Justices rule as expected, get ready for dirty air and polluted water to return to the American scene along with the thousands of women who lives are now at risk because of Dobb's.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics … index.htmlInteresting case --- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration implemented a Final Rule in 2020 to force fishing companies like Relentless Inc., Huntress Inc., and Seafreeze Fleet LLC, to pay for human at-sea monitors aboard their vessels. Congress never gave the agency authority to launch such a program. This at-sea monitor mandate violates the Constitution’s Article I.
Seems we are seeing more and more people not willing to have the long arm of government dictating their right to make a living without being penalized financially beyond their capacity to make a profit.
Sticky situation, I mean we need regulation regarding the environment, but have they gone to far?If the Conservative Court rules against the Executive Branch and Congress, the lives of millions of Americans will be at risk.
Effectively, Congress will have to write all the Rules an executive agency creates to carry out the will of Congress into each law. The environmental laws that you mention will probably be the first to go. Keep in mind, it was the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts that Gorsuch's mother (and not Gorsuch) was trying to kill. That was too much for Reagan and he forced her to resign. (and Gorsuch, who should recuse himself, is carrying that bias into his decision-making.)
BTW, did you look into WHY those fisheries were required to carry those monitors? I just did, and on the face of it, I agree with the fishermen.
As I see it, the Court has an out. Chevron requires judges to err on the side of agencies and their experts UNLESS the rule is found not to be reasonable, which, in my opinion, this one is not. So, all the Justices have to do is follow Chevron and declare the Rule unreasonable and cannot be enforced.the Supreme Court appears on the precipice of either overturning or limiting the scope of Chevron deference. Once again overturning precedence.
Chevron lets judges defer to federal agencies when it comes to figuring out how to implement a law if there are disputes over how to interpret the language Congress passed. The assumption is that the agency has more expertise on the matter than a federal judge assigned to the case.
So will SCOTUS shift the power of federal agencies regulatory abilities to themselves, the courts?
The intent of Chevron was to limit judges attempting to legislate from the bench. The Roberts Court appears ready to undermine that. The court’s ruling could have ripple effects across the federal government, where agencies frequently use highly trained experts to interpret and implement federal laws. But somehow we are to believe that judges are inadequate replacement for such decisions?
Justice Kagan cited as one example a hypothetical bill to regulate artificial intelligence. So it would want people “who actually know about AI and are accountable to the political process to make decisions” about artificial intelligence. Courts, she emphasized, “don’t even know what the questions are about AI,” much less the answers"
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that Chevron allows Congress to delegate policy choices to executive agencies and voiced concerns that “if we take away something like Chevron, the court will then suddenly become a policymaker"
Let that sink in, a body that is not elected by the people, for life will make policy decisions. That's a hard no for me.Willow, A critic could argue that the doctrine can lead to government overreach and burdensome regulations that adversely affect industries, making it challenging for them to operate profitably, due to rising regulation costs. The concern is perhaps rooted in the idea that executive agencies might exceed their authority or interpret statutes in a way that goes beyond what was intended by Congress.
Chevron doctrine may contend that it gives too much deference to administrative agencies, allowing them to interpret laws broadly and create regulations that have significant economic impacts on communities. One could argue for a more restrictive approach, where courts play a more active role in interpreting statutes and overseeing regulatory actions to ensure they align closely with legislative intent.
I can see your point that the Chevron doctrine might well work to strike a balance by acknowledging the expertise of administrative agencies in implementing complex regulatory frameworks. However, agencies that have a history of blanketing issues.
As I see it, the debate around Chevron revolves around the trade-off between granting flexibility to agencies for effective governance and the potential risks of regulatory overreach and economic burdens. A big old circle. I am going to admit, I am up in the air on this one. We need expertise to help with decision-making on many issues. But do we need government agencies? I suppose courts could hear expertise from experts from the private sector. This is a hard one. You got me thinking, you made some good points.
SharYou said "A critic could argue that the doctrine can lead to government overreach and burdensome regulations that adversely affect industries, making it challenging for them to operate profitably,"
I would point out that industries have been making great profits the entire time Chevron has been in force. Why would that change??
I can't believe you, of all people, would want Judges and Justices making policy decisions and diminishing the power of Congress to do the job they were elected for.While government regulations on businesses are often implemented with good intentions, it's essential to at best consider the potential negative consequences. One of my concerns is the potential burden on small businesses. Excessive regulations can in some cases lead to increased compliance costs, making it challenging for smaller enterprises to thrive. One could say it's these kinds of businesses that fall through the cracks. This, in turn, may hinder innovation and economic growth for the middle class. So, I have a problem with that. I find the concept of keeping an economic balance very important.
Moreover, stringent regulations may create a barrier to entry for new businesses, limiting competition in the market. Do we seek a rich/poor society? Reduced competition can result in less incentive for businesses to improve efficiency or provide better services, as they face less pressure to stand out in the marketplace.
Another downside is the bureaucratic complexity that comes with numerous regulations. Businesses may find themselves entangled in red tape, diverting resources away from core operations to navigate and comply with complex regulatory frameworks. This bureaucratic burden can be especially challenging for startups and entrepreneurs.
Additionally, overregulation may stifle entrepreneurial spirit and risk-taking. When businesses are overly constrained by rules, they may become risk-averse, hindering the development of innovative solutions and impeding overall economic dynamism.
I am sort of on the fence on this one. I think there is good and bad.
Another thought, does our Congress not blanket issues, and many end up under a blanket that could smother their business?
This is a hard one...But again, for as long as Chevron has run, small businesses in America have not suffered as a result. Why should it begin now?
Businesses, small or large have been hurt periodically, but not because of over regulation (with exceptions, of course). They have only been hurt by things like:
- the oil embargo during the Nixon - Ford administrations,
- the stagflation and recession at the beginning of Reagan's term
- the recession at the end of Reagan's term and the beginning of Bush I's term
- the recession at the end of Clinton's longest economic expansion up to that point in American history and the beginning of Bush II's term.
- the Republican 2008 almost Depression,
- the Covid recession at the end of Trump's term.
Not once did the Chevron precedent hurt small business.
I think the Court should simply find this particular regulation unreasonable, which Chevron provides for, and let it go at that.
"does our Congress not blanket issues," - not sure what that means.
I think one needs to go back to the fundamental reasons regulations exist - stop or minimize the hurt one entity can do to another. For example, regulations against discrimination. Regulations to keep the free market system free. (A truly free market will devolve into monopoly and oligopoly.
In this case I am guessing that the fishermen have overfished which deprive others of an income. Had this not been the case, then there would have been no reason to put human monitors on board ship. To me, that is reasonable. What I find unreasonable is making the fishermen pay for it.
After this vote, I am firmly convinced that Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh would NOT have ratified the Constitution had they been given the chance.
This was an easy decision to side with the federal gov't over Texas' move to replace the federal gov't's authority with its own regarding the national border. Greg Abbott, Texas governor, in my opinion, attempted to secede from the Union.
"Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said that while the order is a victory for the Biden administration, the delay in issuing it raises future questions.
“Whatever one thinks of current immigration policy, it ought not to be that controversial that states cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law – lest we set the stage for Democratic-led states to similarly attempt to frustrate the enforcement of federal policies by Republican presidents,” Vladeck said. “That four justices would still have left the lower-court injunction in place will be taken, rightly or wrongly, as a sign that some of those longstanding principles of constitutional federalism might be in a degree of flux.”
MAGA has gotten one step closer to dissolving the Union.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/22/politics … index.htmlIt looks like (although one can never tell) the Supreme Court will not take the big government stance Conservatives want by allowing Texas and Florida to do away with the 1st Amendment rights of social media platforms and many other things by logical extension.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour … 4a5e335545In a sickening ruling that shows Conservative disdain for individual rights, science, and parental control, the Court says it is OK hurt and maybe let die Trans Youth.
I don't have the right to tell somebody how to live their live and certainly don't have a right to tell loving parents how to bring up their children, BUT, it seems Conservatives have taken on God's role in defining who children are allowed to be.
"Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/18/politics … rans-youthThey didn't take on God's role: what kids are was defined at conception. Take your pick on which god did the deed.
We as a society owe it to the children to protect them, and that most definitely includes protection from sexual mutilation to turn them into an "it", a sexless being the must pretend to be one or the other. Far, far better to provide counseling/psychiatric help than simple mutilation, whether physical or chemical.God make them trans. Besides, you have no interest in understanding the science behind trans people or how trans people perceive the world, The fact that you tell them to get counselling/psychiatric help speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge on the subject. 81% of trans youth want such help, only about 50% are able to find it. Conservative opposition to "the other" is partly responsible for that sad statistic.
Bottom line, since they are not like you, they must be bad and do not have the right to chart their own course. Instead, you want to do if for them.
You are also back to your old habits of gross exaggeration. You make it sound like EVERY trans kid gets surgically altered to make your point. Well, surprise surprise, that preconceived notion is not true.No, God made them either male or female. That some people think that they can change that doesn't make it true. At best they can create a sexless "it" that goes on to pretend to something they are not.
But, as usual, you have a reading/comprehension problem. Here,; let me quote myself: "Far, far better to provide counseling/psychiatric help than simple mutilation, whether physical or chemical. Slightly different than what you appear to have read, which was "you tell them to get counselling/psychiatric", isn't it? Kind of like me claiming you tell the kids to get a knife and go to work on themselves.
Then the trans kids that don't want either surgical OR chemical changes (trying to change the point doesn't work well, although you will do it often) won't be affected, will they? What's the problem then?
Eso, I have no problem with an adult capable of making life changing decisions making that decision. All I ask is that they don't demand that I agree they have changed sexes. But the court did absolutely right in saying that a state law forbidding it being done to children can stand.So those are the only two genes in the human make up that determine gender identity. Science disagrees. I have proved it to you already, prove me wrong.
I will go this far, you are correct that being born with a penis or vagina determines what "sex", in the technical since, you are - but science has proven now for the last 30, that does not determine what gender you are. Imaging of the brain proves that as I offered you earlier.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that genital surgeries happen frequently with minors who know they have the wrong body parts. But to give you the facts: there is no recorded instance of that happening to children under 12. In 13 - 17 year old's, it is extremely rare and happens only after massive medical and psychological evaluation (my guess is there is a high likelihood of suicide if it isn't performed).
So, no, the Court was very wrong taking away liberty's from parents and their kids, for something that basically doesn't happen and his heavily regulated anyway. All it shows is the conservative bent for telling people how to run their lives.Can you give me even one instance when a trans kid got gender affirming treatment AGAINST their will as you state.
Trump and mob bosses rarely tell their underlings what to do. History shows when they want someone hit (or prosecuted) they start out the order with something like "Wouldn't it be a good idea to ..."Only you are talking about "gender" (feminine, masculine). The rest of us are speaking of sex, which IS determined by the XY genetic pair.
Even Trans people are concerned with sex, not gender, which is why they take hormones and have surgery to emasculate themselves; it makes pretending to be the opposite sex easier.
I get that misusing those two terms (gender vs sex) makes it much easier to make a case for transgender people, but it does NOT promote discussion. Even the term (transgender) follows this path, for it is not "gender" they wish to change, but sex. No matter how feminine a man behaves he is still a man and cannot compete in women's sports; he must declare he is a woman before that can happen, so he does. And liberals swallow that nonsense.
Again, if it does not happen, what is wrong with SCOTUS reaffirming state law about a child's right to make life changing decisions? Or a parent's right to make those decisions for a child, knowing they cannot do what they will try to do (change the child's sex)?
Eso, we have, as a culture, gone ever further down the path of changing our appearance to fit what we want to be. We dye our hair to appear younger. We break bones multiple times to be taller. We enlarge breasts to be sexier. The whole transgender thing is nothing but more of the same, to the nth degree; a desire to be what we are not. It is a mental aberration that is better handled with a psychiatrist and perhaps a change in culture (what is wrong with a feminine male, after all?).
Culture defines gender, creating the "normal" behavior patterns for the sexes. Change that and the "need" to remove sex organs or change hormonal structure will no longer exist. People could behave as they wish without fear of being ostracized. We did it (to a large degree) with homosexuality - why can't we do it with gender?What part of "'gender' affirming care" do you not understand.
To say Even Trans people are concerned with sex, not gender, which is why they take hormones and have surgery to emasculate themselves; it makes pretending to be the opposite sex easier. expresses your total lack of understanding of how humans work. THEY ARE NOT PRETENDING! They conceptualize themselves to have the nature of a man or women. Brain imaging scans (sorry for being in science here) show that. Images of men and women are different. Images of trans women more closely align with cis-women. So it isn't just about physical appearance.
Didn't the Chinese and some other "Cultures" say to kill female babies at one point in time?
To say "culture defines gender" is to conflate roles and expectations with internal identity. Culture may dictate:
What men and women are supposed to do
What is socially acceptable for each gender
…but it does not necessarily dictate what a person is.
Analogy: Culture can define how we express hunger (e.g. table manners, cuisine), but it doesn't define the biological fact of being hungry."THEY ARE NOT PRETENDING! They conceptualize themselves to have the nature of a man or women."
Yes, they ARE pretending. They are not complaining about filling the cultural roles of men or women; they are complaining that they cannot fill the sexual roles, defined by society, of men or women.
Men want to compete in sports limited to biological women. Men want to use dressing/bath rooms designated for (biological) women. Tran's people do what they can to either remove their sexuality or to change it to something it was not. Demands are made to change the English language to remove sexual indications of pronouns, and to use pronouns that do not indicate sex (as if that will neuter them or change their sex). All are an attempt to be what they are not.
On the other hand, they can behave as the opposite sex (again, masculine/feminine). They can do this without hormone blockers, without surgery.
Problem is that for millenia sex and gender were interchangeable. Now a handful want to change that, making gender a brain matter and sex a physical one. Unfortunately they themselves ALSO want to interchange the two at will, still using them to communicate to others.
Example: men in women's sports. There are undeniable reasons for this not to happen, so the discussion is not about different sexes competing. Instead "woman" is used to define the physical characteristics of a man in order that he CAN compete with women. Doesn't work.
You got it for "culture defines gender" - why is it so difficult to understand that the person in question does NOT set those standards? Why is it so difficult to understand that much of the complaint comes from trying to be accepted as a different sex rather than gender; that our society has defined many things as based on sex, not gender? Culture (and science) absolutely defines what sex one is - why the enormous effort to change that, if not to pretend to have a sex different than what science says you are?Then explain why the brain images are wrong. Are they fake or something?
Brain images are very often wrong - do you know how reliable first hand witness statements are? What in the world makes you think that brain images always agree with reality? What makes you think it is impossible to have male genitalia and be feminine - to feel better behaving as a woman, or vice versa
Do you think women the likes of Annie Oakley, Amelia Earhart, Marie Curie, Katherine Johnson and Jane Goodall were expressing their "gender", their femininity, with their behavior? Hint - their actions, for their time period, were limited to people with a penis...and them. No one else.
Men behaving in traditionally women's roles are harder to find, but what about single dads? The father giving a tea party for his daughter, or buying her her first tampons and happy to be doing it?
All born into the wrong gender, but they didn't decide they would just switch and magically become the other sex. They acted, doing things of the "wrong" gender and not blinking an eye over it.
This has gone on throughout history - it is only recently that some have decided that because they would be more comfortable as the opposite sex that they would BE the opposite sex. Worse, they decided that everyone else had to recognize and agree that they had changed sexes. Unsatisfied with the role Society puts them into, and unwilling to step outside of societies role, they decide that they would change their sex to match their perceived gender.
But they have not changed their sex. They may have castrated themselves physically or chemically to the point they are basically sexless, but they are still the sex they were born with. All the pretending in the world will not change that. Society has ben to accommodate gay people - it can (with time) bend to accommodate those that want to behave outside their gender roles as defined by society.Oh come, brain images are often wrong? You have been smoking something. If that were the case, wouldn't the death rate from brain surgeries by through the roof?
That must have been sarcasm.
You will need to argue with the scientists if you want to pursue this nonsense. I bet that you would have been defending to the death that the earth was the center of universe in 1500 BCE because that is what the culture thought.It was not sarcasm. I recall the day that, while driving along the freeway with my son, he suddenly became VERY excited. There is a lion in the filed next to us! A lion!
Of course there was no such thing. There WAS a cow, however, behind a bush that made it look like it had a lion's mane. The brain image was 100% wrong. Have you never seen something...and then decided the image in your brain was not what you had seen?
But I do wonder if we are simply not communicating. That you have given new meaning to the words you use, but have not told me what that meaning is.
Can (will) you define "gender"? And "sex" (the adjective, not the verb)? And if it isn't an internal picture, a perception, what are you calling a "brain image"? Is it a cat scan, or an MRI?Depending on the study, it was either an MRI, fMRI, or DTI,
Related Discussions
- 49
Unelected Resistance: The Legal War Against President Trump’s Mandate
by Sharlee 3 days ago
Just a few months into President Trump’s second term, we’re witnessing an aggressive judicial campaign unlike anything in recent memory. Though elected by a majority of Americans hungry for change and committed to America First policies, President Trump’s ability to govern is being challenged not...
- 48
SC says no more faithless electors in the EC- what say conservatives?
by Credence2 5 years ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … gK1iPD_BwEThis nice reassurance ruling from the Supreme Court may well give the Electoral College a new lease on life and make the institution less troublesome in my eyes than before.No more happenstance, if you don't want something to occur,...
- 50
Senate repeals a portion of the Healthcare Law
by C.J. Wright 14 years ago
Recently the addition of 500 waivers brought the total number of waivers to over 700 entities that are allowed to "opt" out of the new Health Care Law. Now we see that the Senate has agreed to repeal the 1099 provison for business purchases. This repeal removes an estimated 17 Billion...
- 37
The case why I am compelled to vote against the GOP/Conservatives
by Credence2 4 years ago
A great article that speaks for me and my opinion regarding the aforementioned topic in the Atlantic. How much of it concurs with your own?https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … te/616808/Patience, it could be seen as a long read.Your thoughts, please.
- 21
Supreme Court Slaps Down ACORN and Environmental Wackos
by TMMason 14 years ago
That make a few this court has got right. If we can just sit a couple more Conservative judges there after we take the Presidency in 2012, maybe we can right this country back upon the correct course.WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from ACORN, the activist group driven to ruin...
- 103
Rogue Judges Contained
by Readmikenow 3 weeks ago
Thanks to the SCOTUS there will NO LONGER be any nationwide injunctions from rogue federal district court judges. I agree with the Supreme Court, these judges far exceeded their authority. There were also important rulings for parents and more.Nationwide injunctionsIn the most...