She’s wrong about two things at least. Agency employees do not normally change with a new administration. That Is why they are sometimes referred to as “the permanent government “ or “the fourth branch of government.” Trump intends to fire them if elected and clean house. Also this ruling does not empower corporations. It simply puts the burden of regulation on Congress where it belongs.
This is the narrative by the liberals, that if the regulators arent given unlimited and unchecked power, the corporates will take advantage and go out of control.
You can easily see the logical fallacy in this argument. This is the strawman they are setting up:
Disallowing regulatory agencies from interpreting ambiguous laws absolutely however they want will take away all ability to keep the corporations in check.
But the straw man is false. There are plenty of ways to keep corporates under check.
When there are ambiguous rules, the congress can clarify those ambiguities reflecting the intention of their constituents.
When corporates are doing obviously harmful things, people still have recourse to courts
You can still have minimal regulatory agencies, but who don't have unlimited authority and who have to be bound by the constitution
The second logical fallacy implied in this:
Regulatory agencies will never abuse their unlimited powers for the gains of corporates
We see this all the time. FDA ensures cancer curing drugs never see the light of the day. EPA uses their power to further the WEF agenda of reducing farmlands, etc.
These regulatory agencies are revolving doors between government and private sector. Bank regulators are ex-executives at big banks. FDA regulators are ex-executives at Big Pharma and so on
The third logical fallacy implied in this:
So called experts in any field are infallible and need not be held to account
This one is self explanatory. No one is beyond accountability, as we saw with Covid, Vaccines, Climate Change etc. Infact, experts should held strictly accountable by their peers and there should be easy ways in which their interpretation of laws can be questioned by other experts.
Big corporations run the agencies already. There will be a lot of unknown outcomes in terms of winners and losers as this trickles down, but generally speaking the regulators require private companies to spend on overhead (compliance reports, audits, permits, studies) to make the regulator's lives and work easier. The bigger the overhead, the more it favors big companies at the expense of smaller companies and individuals. A regulator truly can't afford to shut down a company that funds 30% of the agency's revenues, but they can easily shut down 20 companies that all fund less than 1%. Put another way, Exxon can hire hundreds of accountants for an audit, but a small operator with 3 wells (if any still exist) who gets audited can lose their entire year's margin.
Your not suggesting our current Fascist system is designed to prevent competition from new small innovative competitors because Corporations control the government corporation for their own benefit at the expense of We The People. And train useful idiots like Obummer and this knee up set of tits to try to market it for them.
I'm not agreeing with her because she's wrong on several counts... However:
It's important that people realize that Chevron is EXACTLY how the [DS] maintained it's unchecked power regardless of the cyclical 2 party dem/rep rope a dope tag team bs.
She’s wrong about two things at least. Agency employees do not normally change with a new administration. That Is why they are sometimes referred to as “the permanent government “ or “the fourth branch of government.” Trump intends to fire them if elected and clean house. Also this ruling does not empower corporations. It simply puts the burden of regulation on Congress where it belongs.
Basically it just forces Congress to do their damn jobs.
Hmm and is Congress a group of unelected autocrats? She has wet paper bag type logic
Agreed on both counts. Her "oh noes da Corporayshuns" thing is "The Washington Monument Strategy" applied.
Liberal lawyer who's not happy about the corrupt government losing so much power over We The People.
This is the narrative by the liberals, that if the regulators arent given unlimited and unchecked power, the corporates will take advantage and go out of control.
You can easily see the logical fallacy in this argument. This is the strawman they are setting up:
But the straw man is false. There are plenty of ways to keep corporates under check.
When there are ambiguous rules, the congress can clarify those ambiguities reflecting the intention of their constituents.
When corporates are doing obviously harmful things, people still have recourse to courts
You can still have minimal regulatory agencies, but who don't have unlimited authority and who have to be bound by the constitution
The second logical fallacy implied in this:
We see this all the time. FDA ensures cancer curing drugs never see the light of the day. EPA uses their power to further the WEF agenda of reducing farmlands, etc.
These regulatory agencies are revolving doors between government and private sector. Bank regulators are ex-executives at big banks. FDA regulators are ex-executives at Big Pharma and so on
The third logical fallacy implied in this:
This one is self explanatory. No one is beyond accountability, as we saw with Covid, Vaccines, Climate Change etc. Infact, experts should held strictly accountable by their peers and there should be easy ways in which their interpretation of laws can be questioned by other experts.
Big corporations run the agencies already. There will be a lot of unknown outcomes in terms of winners and losers as this trickles down, but generally speaking the regulators require private companies to spend on overhead (compliance reports, audits, permits, studies) to make the regulator's lives and work easier. The bigger the overhead, the more it favors big companies at the expense of smaller companies and individuals. A regulator truly can't afford to shut down a company that funds 30% of the agency's revenues, but they can easily shut down 20 companies that all fund less than 1%. Put another way, Exxon can hire hundreds of accountants for an audit, but a small operator with 3 wells (if any still exist) who gets audited can lose their entire year's margin.
Your not suggesting our current Fascist system is designed to prevent competition from new small innovative competitors because Corporations control the government corporation for their own benefit at the expense of We The People. And train useful idiots like Obummer and this knee up set of tits to try to market it for them.
Yeah, whodathunkit? We at GAW know, except maybe not OP.
But it's annoying that sexy ivy-league coeds are like "OMG! SCOTUS just empowered big corps!"
That Black Girl is FINE ! 😍
Too LOOK @ ONLY!!!!!!
I'm not agreeing with her because she's wrong on several counts... However:
It's important that people realize that Chevron is EXACTLY how the [DS] maintained it's unchecked power regardless of the cyclical 2 party dem/rep rope a dope tag team bs.