The SO CALLED rank and file FBI agents that are perpetuating this SHIT and not Whistleblowing are just as evil as those who made these laws. SO are the judges and lawyers who enforce it.
Good question. I haven't seen anything change yet. Maybe it requires court cases. Or maybe it requires a MAGA takeover of the government and a throwing out in the trash of everything unconstitutional. Quite a pile of trash.
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), which held that, if a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to a specific issue, a court must defer to an agency’s reasonable construction of the statute, even if the court would have construed the statute differently. Loper Bright instead held that “[c]ourts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” No. 22-1219, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2882, at *61-62 (June 28, 2024). The Court preemptively opined that Chevron’s overruling does not undermine the respect that precedents applying Chevron are entitled to under the doctrine of stare decisis. This explicit admonition will likely be followed by courts in most circumstances. See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. United States, 361 F.3d 1378, 1385 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Notably, even if dicta, we would feel obligated to follow the Supreme Court's explicit and carefully considered statements . . . .”).
Going forward, Loper Bright will clearly alter the formal manner in which U.S. Courts adjudicate cases involving the interpretation of and Agencies statutes. An Agency’s interpretation of the statutes it implements will no longer receive the sort of broad deference Chevron afforded. Instead, arguments will be considered for their persuasive value in accordance with Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944) (considering an agency’s interpretation of a statute based upon “the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control”).
The practical effect of Chevron’s demise will vary depending on the specifics of every case. As the Court observed in Loper Bright, the question of deference under Chevron was not even reached unless a court determined that the statute was ambiguous with respect to a certain issue, and individual judges answered the ambiguity question in very different ways. 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2882, at *55 (“Ambiguity is a term that may have different meanings for different judges. One judge might see ambiguity everywhere; another might never encounter it.” (cleaned up)). Thus, even while Chevron was on the books, a court could avoid deferring to an agency interpretation if the court could discern a clear answer to the statutory question.
Yet whatever the effects going forward, the Loper Bright Court was explicit that the overruling of Chevron should not upset the stare decisis value of past judicial decisions applying Chevron:
"By doing so, however, we do not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful—including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself—are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology. See CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U. S. 442, 457 (2008). Mere reliance on Chevron cannot constitute a “‘special justification’” for overruling such a holding, because to say a precedent relied on Chevron is, at best, “just an argument that the precedent was wrongly decided.” Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U. S. 258, 266 (2014)(quoting Dickerson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428, 443 (2000)). That is not enough to justify overruling a statutory precedent.2024 U.S. LEXIS 2882, at *60-61.
This passage will be a critical source of authority for an Agency in arguing that previously settled statutory interpretations should not be revisited or upset simply because those interpretations relied on Chevron. It would be difficult for courts to evade Loper Bright’s admonition on this point.
But there is still a risk that courts could purport to discern exceptions to that admonition in particular cases. As the Loper Bright dissent observed: “Courts motivated to overrule an old Chevron-based decision can always come up with something to label a ‘special justification.’ Maybe a court will say ‘the quality of the precedent’s reasoning’ was poor. Or maybe the court will discover something ‘unworkable’ in the decision—like some exception that has to be applied.” 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2882, at *153 (Kagan, J., dissenting) (cleaned up).
Chevron’s overruling is most likely to tempt courts to revisit precedent that applied Chevron’s framework in circumstances where (1) there was disagreement among judges about whether the statute was silent or ambiguous on a particular issue; and (2) the decision of the court, even if unanimous, expressed doubt that the agency’s interpretation was the best one or opined that the court would have interpreted the statute differently but for Chevron.
In sum, although Loper Bright overruled Chevron, the Court attempted to preempt use of the overruling as a basis to revisit settled precedent applying Chevron. The Court’s admonition provides clear language that an Agency should invoke as appropriate, and with which courts are generally likely to abide. But there is still a risk that courts will revisit previously settled statutory questions in circumstances where Chevron’s application was controversial.
13 word question, 10 paragraph response. Not picking on you, just pointing out an inherent problem with wordsmithing. Hopefully at the end of this we find ways to settle things quicker from the beginning, without creating multiple further complications due to more lengthy wordsmithing.
I've also seen it translated as "The most law, the least justice" and in other ways.
However you say it, the point is that coercive Power-- the Power to inflict coercion and violence on innocents with impunity -- is evil. It can NEVER be used for good, because it attracts and empowers psychopaths and sociopaths, so corruption and evil INEVITABLY grow once the ember of coercion is set alight.
See: America since its inception. "The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" gradually became the Land of Tyranny and the Home of the Cowering Slaves. Let us PLEASE, PLEASE not start the cycle anew after the Great Awakening blossoms.
The Ring of Power MUST BE DESTROYED; civil society must be our goal.
It is interesting to consider that corruption not only refers to pay for play, but also the rotting and unbinding [ loss of consistency] of corpses ...
balnea vina venus corrumpunt corpora nostra sed vitam faciunt balnea vina venus.
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Separate the heads of subhumans from the rest of their bodies. But it literally has to be EVERY politician from the lowest town council to the highest office in the land.
Lavrentiy Beria
Mini Bio
Name: Lavrentiy Beria
Born: 29th March 1899, Merkheuli, Sukhum Okrug, Russian Empire
Died: 23rd December 1953, Moscow, Soviet Union
Occupation: Soviet politician and chief of the secret police
Infamous for: The deaths of millions of Russians
Nickname: Russia's Himmler
Trivia: He used to prowl the streets of Moscow and order his guards to bring teenage girls to his house where he would rape them. He also had his own personal torture chamber in the basement of his house
Example: For whistling at a whale feeding, The FBI is literally raiding homes, taking computers, confiscating cell phones, charging people with felonies. One woman lost her business, her pension, lost everything in her life.
In the not too distant future they will say it’s a crime not to get an abortion if you are white or abortion is legal up to the age of 99 if you are white.
Nothing surprises me with the crazies pulling the strings.
The SO CALLED rank and file FBI agents that are perpetuating this SHIT and not Whistleblowing are just as evil as those who made these laws. SO are the judges and lawyers who enforce it.
Need lots of ropes.
Can somebody say The Milgram Experiment?
Knock Knock Knock... "Did you whistle at Stacey Abrams??"
Howls. I didn't but someone did.
Yeah, I did, I thought she was a taxi and my car was in the shop! Honest mistake!
And THAAAT'S an up vote...
That's in insult to whales, which are a highly intelligent animal.
When are the ramfications of the Chevron decision going to start taking effect?
Good question. I haven't seen anything change yet. Maybe it requires court cases. Or maybe it requires a MAGA takeover of the government and a throwing out in the trash of everything unconstitutional. Quite a pile of trash.
ANSWER: Not for a very long time.
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), which held that, if a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to a specific issue, a court must defer to an agency’s reasonable construction of the statute, even if the court would have construed the statute differently. Loper Bright instead held that “[c]ourts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” No. 22-1219, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2882, at *61-62 (June 28, 2024). The Court preemptively opined that Chevron’s overruling does not undermine the respect that precedents applying Chevron are entitled to under the doctrine of stare decisis. This explicit admonition will likely be followed by courts in most circumstances. See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. United States, 361 F.3d 1378, 1385 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Notably, even if dicta, we would feel obligated to follow the Supreme Court's explicit and carefully considered statements . . . .”).
Going forward, Loper Bright will clearly alter the formal manner in which U.S. Courts adjudicate cases involving the interpretation of and Agencies statutes. An Agency’s interpretation of the statutes it implements will no longer receive the sort of broad deference Chevron afforded. Instead, arguments will be considered for their persuasive value in accordance with Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944) (considering an agency’s interpretation of a statute based upon “the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control”).
The practical effect of Chevron’s demise will vary depending on the specifics of every case. As the Court observed in Loper Bright, the question of deference under Chevron was not even reached unless a court determined that the statute was ambiguous with respect to a certain issue, and individual judges answered the ambiguity question in very different ways. 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2882, at *55 (“Ambiguity is a term that may have different meanings for different judges. One judge might see ambiguity everywhere; another might never encounter it.” (cleaned up)). Thus, even while Chevron was on the books, a court could avoid deferring to an agency interpretation if the court could discern a clear answer to the statutory question.
Yet whatever the effects going forward, the Loper Bright Court was explicit that the overruling of Chevron should not upset the stare decisis value of past judicial decisions applying Chevron:
"By doing so, however, we do not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful—including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself—are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology. See CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U. S. 442, 457 (2008). Mere reliance on Chevron cannot constitute a “‘special justification’” for overruling such a holding, because to say a precedent relied on Chevron is, at best, “just an argument that the precedent was wrongly decided.” Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U. S. 258, 266 (2014)(quoting Dickerson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428, 443 (2000)). That is not enough to justify overruling a statutory precedent.2024 U.S. LEXIS 2882, at *60-61.
This passage will be a critical source of authority for an Agency in arguing that previously settled statutory interpretations should not be revisited or upset simply because those interpretations relied on Chevron. It would be difficult for courts to evade Loper Bright’s admonition on this point.
But there is still a risk that courts could purport to discern exceptions to that admonition in particular cases. As the Loper Bright dissent observed: “Courts motivated to overrule an old Chevron-based decision can always come up with something to label a ‘special justification.’ Maybe a court will say ‘the quality of the precedent’s reasoning’ was poor. Or maybe the court will discover something ‘unworkable’ in the decision—like some exception that has to be applied.” 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2882, at *153 (Kagan, J., dissenting) (cleaned up).
Chevron’s overruling is most likely to tempt courts to revisit precedent that applied Chevron’s framework in circumstances where (1) there was disagreement among judges about whether the statute was silent or ambiguous on a particular issue; and (2) the decision of the court, even if unanimous, expressed doubt that the agency’s interpretation was the best one or opined that the court would have interpreted the statute differently but for Chevron.
In sum, although Loper Bright overruled Chevron, the Court attempted to preempt use of the overruling as a basis to revisit settled precedent applying Chevron. The Court’s admonition provides clear language that an Agency should invoke as appropriate, and with which courts are generally likely to abide. But there is still a risk that courts will revisit previously settled statutory questions in circumstances where Chevron’s application was controversial.
13 word question, 10 paragraph response. Not picking on you, just pointing out an inherent problem with wordsmithing. Hopefully at the end of this we find ways to settle things quicker from the beginning, without creating multiple further complications due to more lengthy wordsmithing.
The second Thursday of next week.
Hopefully soon.
“More law, less justice.” Marcus Tullius Cicero, On Duties (44 BC). https://kwize.com/quote/5434
I've also seen it translated as "The most law, the least justice" and in other ways.
However you say it, the point is that coercive Power-- the Power to inflict coercion and violence on innocents with impunity -- is evil. It can NEVER be used for good, because it attracts and empowers psychopaths and sociopaths, so corruption and evil INEVITABLY grow once the ember of coercion is set alight.
See: America since its inception. "The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" gradually became the Land of Tyranny and the Home of the Cowering Slaves. Let us PLEASE, PLEASE not start the cycle anew after the Great Awakening blossoms.
The Ring of Power MUST BE DESTROYED; civil society must be our goal.
There's too many laws that's so stupid everywhere on the book. Someone needs to do a lot of cleaning.
De Officiis by Cicero:
It is interesting to consider that corruption not only refers to pay for play, but also the rotting and unbinding [ loss of consistency] of corpses ...
That sure doesn't sound like a Constitutional Republic to me. Not that I had any illusions...
Neither do I.
Now talk about the things that used to be crimes and are now legal.
Yes. I got you bud.
Ayn Rand
I really should read Ayn Rand. My friend from WA told me to read her. He told me she is excellent.
Separate the heads of subhumans from the rest of their bodies. But it literally has to be EVERY politician from the lowest town council to the highest office in the land.
I agree.
Lavrentiy Beria Mini Bio Name: Lavrentiy Beria Born: 29th March 1899, Merkheuli, Sukhum Okrug, Russian Empire Died: 23rd December 1953, Moscow, Soviet Union Occupation: Soviet politician and chief of the secret police Infamous for: The deaths of millions of Russians Nickname: Russia's Himmler Trivia: He used to prowl the streets of Moscow and order his guards to bring teenage girls to his house where he would rape them. He also had his own personal torture chamber in the basement of his house
"Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime"
Lavrentiy Beria
Power corrupt and corrupt completely. I am not surprised.
For whistling.
At a whale feeding.
Something tells me I'm missing something here.
Giving this one the 72-Hour Rule for sure :)
Amen.
We are in a fascist communist stage now.
This all started twenty years ago over hate speech
20 years ago you said? Some of the laws in the book are older than dirt and changes with time.
In the not too distant future they will say it’s a crime not to get an abortion if you are white or abortion is legal up to the age of 99 if you are white.
Nothing surprises me with the crazies pulling the strings.
I'll tell you, I wouldn't be surprised if it happen.