They're just pulling the usual tricks in an attempt to get ahead of Trump. Complaints of Trump 'circumventing the law' and yet here we are with an internal judicial coup attempt over Congress.
Let the Supreme Court vote any which way they choose. If they vote the wrong way and it puts our nation in a crisis the US military will jump in to quell any uprisings resulting from that decision. Maybe this will be the impetus for the military to begin rattling its chain so the average Joe can begin to se that the only way to get this country back on track is through military intervention.
There is enough evidence of a crime to arrest at least 1 judge . they need to fkn do it , this would more then likely get the others to back up a bit !
Umm, frens. This article appears to be written from a leftarded point of view. The case involves the “non-delegation” doctrine, which basically means that any legislation that Congress passes cannot be delegated to be administrated to another entity. The 5 republican justices have all seemed to be in favor of resurrecting this doctrine. I asked Grok for a breakdown and this is what it gave me.
******************************************************************************************* The non-delegation doctrine is a principle in U.S. constitutional law that holds that Congress, as the legislative branch, cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities, such as administrative agencies or the executive branch. It stems from the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution, where lawmaking authority is vested solely in Congress under Article I. The idea is to ensure accountability and prevent unelected officials from wielding unchecked legislative authority.
In practice, though, Congress has delegated significant rule-making power to agencies—like the EPA, FDA, or SEC—since the early 20th century, especially with the growth of the administrative state. The Supreme Court has generally allowed this under the "intelligible principle" test: as long as Congress provides a clear guideline or standard, delegation is permissible. The last time the doctrine was strictly enforced to strike down a law was in 1935, during New Deal-era cases like Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan and A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. Since then, it’s been largely dormant, though some justices (like Gorsuch) have recently pushed to revive it.
If the non-delegation doctrine were strictly enforced today, it’d upend how society functions. Administrative agencies handle everything from environmental regulations to workplace safety, drug approvals, and financial oversight. Without delegation, Congress would need to directly legislate every detail—imagine trying to pass specific emissions standards or clinical trial rules through a gridlocked House and Senate. It’d slow governance to a crawl, given Congress’s limited capacity (535 members, endless debates). Agencies employ experts; lawmakers often don’t. So, efficiency and expertise would take a hit.
On the flip side, it could force accountability. Agencies sometimes overreach—think controversial EPA rules or SEC crypto crackdowns. A stricter doctrine might curb that, making laws more democratic since elected officials would have to own the decisions. But the trade-off is paralysis or overly broad laws to avoid specifics, leaving courts to fill gaps, which isn’t much better.
Today, with partisan deadlock and complex global challenges (climate change, AI regulation), a revived non-delegation doctrine could grind progress to a halt—or force Congress to get its act together. Pick your poison.
So the courts are trying to take power for themselves.
Sounds like unconstitutional fukery.
No one elected those clowns.
They're just pulling the usual tricks in an attempt to get ahead of Trump. Complaints of Trump 'circumventing the law' and yet here we are with an internal judicial coup attempt over Congress.
Last time I checked,they don't have an army.
Let the Supreme Court vote any which way they choose. If they vote the wrong way and it puts our nation in a crisis the US military will jump in to quell any uprisings resulting from that decision. Maybe this will be the impetus for the military to begin rattling its chain so the average Joe can begin to se that the only way to get this country back on track is through military intervention.
There is enough evidence of a crime to arrest at least 1 judge . they need to fkn do it , this would more then likely get the others to back up a bit !
This explains the case. All I see from MSN is clickbait offering their readers Great Hope in the midst of despair.
This case has zero to do with Judges seizing power .
It's all about FCC redelegating to a private entity what Congress had delegated FCC to do.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-354
Umm, frens. This article appears to be written from a leftarded point of view. The case involves the “non-delegation” doctrine, which basically means that any legislation that Congress passes cannot be delegated to be administrated to another entity. The 5 republican justices have all seemed to be in favor of resurrecting this doctrine. I asked Grok for a breakdown and this is what it gave me. ******************************************************************************************* The non-delegation doctrine is a principle in U.S. constitutional law that holds that Congress, as the legislative branch, cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities, such as administrative agencies or the executive branch. It stems from the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution, where lawmaking authority is vested solely in Congress under Article I. The idea is to ensure accountability and prevent unelected officials from wielding unchecked legislative authority. In practice, though, Congress has delegated significant rule-making power to agencies—like the EPA, FDA, or SEC—since the early 20th century, especially with the growth of the administrative state. The Supreme Court has generally allowed this under the "intelligible principle" test: as long as Congress provides a clear guideline or standard, delegation is permissible. The last time the doctrine was strictly enforced to strike down a law was in 1935, during New Deal-era cases like Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan and A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. Since then, it’s been largely dormant, though some justices (like Gorsuch) have recently pushed to revive it. If the non-delegation doctrine were strictly enforced today, it’d upend how society functions. Administrative agencies handle everything from environmental regulations to workplace safety, drug approvals, and financial oversight. Without delegation, Congress would need to directly legislate every detail—imagine trying to pass specific emissions standards or clinical trial rules through a gridlocked House and Senate. It’d slow governance to a crawl, given Congress’s limited capacity (535 members, endless debates). Agencies employ experts; lawmakers often don’t. So, efficiency and expertise would take a hit. On the flip side, it could force accountability. Agencies sometimes overreach—think controversial EPA rules or SEC crypto crackdowns. A stricter doctrine might curb that, making laws more democratic since elected officials would have to own the decisions. But the trade-off is paralysis or overly broad laws to avoid specifics, leaving courts to fill gaps, which isn’t much better. Today, with partisan deadlock and complex global challenges (climate change, AI regulation), a revived non-delegation doctrine could grind progress to a halt—or force Congress to get its act together. Pick your poison.
Chevron tho.... right?
I was under the impression that the Chevron deference was over. Did I misunderstand?
Essentially the Chevron decision was turned over, paving the way for curtailing all the beauracracy from every branch...
So you are correct - just pointing out that huge overturning is playing out now
Ahh, I see what you mean now.