“If you’re right — if you’re right about Chevron, that would indicate that a subsequent administration could change that interpretation?” Roberts asked.
Roberts’s question was referring to “Chevron deference,” a doctrine mostly unknown beyond the halls of the Capitol and the corridors of the Supreme Court. It refers to a 1984 decision, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and it is one of the most widely cited cases in law.I received a tweet from an observant follower this morning. @thetrueoorah said "There is no greater threat to your life and liberty than a government that does not obey the law."
Boiled down, it says that when a law is ambiguous, judges should defer to the agency designated to implement it so long as the agency’s decision is reasonable. (read more)
Not only did the democrats write a bad law, they wrote it poorly. Now having convinced everyone that "congress is broken", that they can't go back and fix it thru the proscribed constitutional process, they are just going to keep driving on the rims, as it where, and hope it will all work out.
People, we are taking too many shortcuts on the way to wherever our final destination may be.
24 comments:
At Roberts confirmation hearing he said he thought his job would be like that of an umpire calling balls and strikes.
Little could he have foreseen then the proliferation of "instant replay" taking the final say away form umpires.
Otherwise he would have picked another analogy... I would think.
They're not shortcuts. They're detours that keep us circling until we run out of gas. They always ignore the gas gauge.
Great metaphor, bagoh20.
Oh and kudos to you too, Lem.
He's basically saying - 'ya'all keep screwing yourselves over with your votes. I'm not going to help you.'
I'd prefer he do his job.
Lem said...
At Roberts confirmation hearing he said he thought his job would be like that of an umpire calling balls and strikes.
Roberts works for a team and not the league.
I am beyond guessing what these justices will or will not do on a couple of questions from the bench. We know this case turns on which way Kennedy or Roberts go. I guess we will find out in a few months.
I just wish I knew how Democrats manage to pick justices who never go off the Democrat planation.
Maybe they wrote it poorly just so that it could be used as an excuse not to strike it down? A race to the bottom of sorts. I keep going back to my roadierific meta.
You know what else this ad hock way of doing things does, perhaps inadvertently? It lends legitimacy to Obamas newfound executive powers.
Why wouldn't the president decide more "reasonably" than the agency he himself leads?
When Obama said "I have a pen and a phone" it went virtually unchallenged. We are seeing the effects of it come to pass.
The so called supremes are just reaffirming it.
Ostensibly, for as long as Obama is in the White House and even beyond, if Hillary and her emails get in, we are going to have a congress on a par with the Queen of England. You know, a ceremonial thing.
"I have a pen and a phone" would have been tantamount to an attempted coup d'état, just a few decades ago.
It's kindergarten stuff that the law as written is unconstitutional. The fact that there are four automatic votes on the court for Obamacare, for lawlessness, is the real scandal.
"We are nation of laws." is total bullshit. We are a nation of men (and women). They form teams, they fight it out, they cheat, they play ringers, they pay off the referees, and they overinflate their balls.
We watch and cheer it on just so we can hope to have our team win a cheap-ass trophy filled with satisfaction and used bile.
It seems what motivates us most is the prospect of seeing the other side cry, but they never do. They just go back to the dugout mumbling and plotting for the next game.
It a sucky system and a piss poor way to govern a great people.
I saw a TV commercial on TV last night for a local health care system. Scads and scads of stock footage but the overall message seemed to be that you should pick them because they now have some sort of kickass surgical robot.
da Vinci? Botticelli? Michelangelo? Something like that.
And then this morning I drove past a pharmacy advertising that they now sell Flonase over the counter.
And I'm all, like, I wonder how much Chief Justice Roberts could deadlift, single rep max?
Curious, I just went to an online single rep max calculator and plugged in my routine, which is 1 1/2 times my bodyweight for 10 reps.
Calculator said my SRM is twice my bodyweight.
There's a high school level word problem in there, somewhere.
If you can bench 1.5x your body weight, then you should be able to walk on your hands.
Can you walk on your hands?
It's a very good trick at parties.
Lem said...
"I have a pen and a phone" would have been tantamount to an attempted coup d'état, just a few decades ago.
And today it is precisely, not tantamount, just that ... a "coup d'etat for real.
If Roberts can rig "penalty" in to "tax" he's capable of making the term "state" mean state as in "Nation State" rather than as individual states within the "United States."
We'll soon know if he is still semantics deprived. I may even mail him a book: "Language in Thought and Action" by S I Hayakawa ... so he can learn how written & spoken differences really are differences.
I had a high school gym teacher who was a collegiate gymnast and he could walk on his hands.
He encouraged us all to practice walking on our hands. He said it doesn't take any strength at all. He said it takes balance.
He had arms like tree trunks.
I can't think of anything to add to the Obamacare discussion but I remember a skinny little topless dancer from years ago who could walk on her hands. She was also a drunk who, when getting pulled over and told to walk a straight line, walked on her hands in front of a wide eyed cop and walked away without a DUI.
Roberts has always been a big government conservative.
So you know what that means.
It is pretty much over. Obama and his spokesman have announced that they are going to change the tax code without reference to Congress.
Do you think the Republicans are going to do anything about it?
I think it would be easy to indict about 60 or so of the US Senators. Isn't it ironic Holder is going to indict a Dem, who has been very critical of Obama on Cuba and Iran. Now, Menendez is dirty, but this is no coincidence. Slimy Chicago politics. The little old man McCain was right.
Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law. Well, in my not so humble opinion, you can't have a spirit of intent of the law with the letter of the law coming first. So Roberts is going to do what he did last time, initiate his brand of legal jujitsu sorcery to convolutedly get to a decision whereby he will blame the populace for allowing an abysmal law to be enacted that is essentially a tax and let the goods times roll.
I find it a little curious that this Sen. Menendez proposed indictment comes literally moments before the statute of limitations for his malfeasance, not yet established concretely by evidence (although there is some considerable stink) times out. Also immediately following his public resistance to the administration's own malfeasance. A flailing dweeb Holder just can't resist.
Post a Comment