(07-09-2018 04:49 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: I mean I don't want Roe or Obergefell overturned, and will be sad for me when it happens, but it's happening. What actually could have an affect on me personally is when they overturn Chevron Deference and an activist right wing court will have the ability to overrule nearly any executive agency action they want to.
I really don't care too much, one way or the other, about Roe or Obergefell.
But the Chevron deference standard really needs to be overturned. This country is being micromanaged by nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats who have way, way too much power. Congress has yielded far too much power to them. They need their wings clipped and badly. I would favor changing the Administrative Procedure Act to provide:
1) all new agency-rule making is subject to congressional review before taking effect, automatically in cases where the dollar amount of the impact is greater than some threshold number, and by petition of 20% of the members of either house of congress otherwise;
2) all agencies and all of their existing regulations are subject to sunset review every ten years; and
3) administrative law judges (ALJs) who report ultimately to the executive director of the agency cannot provide the impartial tribunal required for procedural due process, and therefore either 1) follow Texas and Oregon (strange pair) in establishing a separate executive office of administrative hearings to try all disputes, or better 2) follow the European example and establish Article III administrative law courts in each federal judicial district, to have original jurisdiction over all administrative causes of action arising in their district, with appeal up through the district court in and for that district.
All this sounds great and all, but the truth of the matter is the real reason the right now wants Chevron gone is because the courts have been pushed further and further right in the last 20 years or so. If the opposite were true and the courts were moving further and further left no way would they want all those "activist judges" to have the power to overrule any executive agency action they disagree with. This is the long game the right has been playing, and kudos to them it worked. They'll likely be able to get rid of Chevron, and then when the Dems do get back into power the activist right wing court system will be able to strike down anything and everything they want to.
So basically what you are saying is as long as those bureaucrats are leaning your way, you don't want any restraints on their power?
(07-09-2018 01:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I picked Barrett as who it should be, not necessarily who it will be, because that would put democrats in a bind.
My thinking as well.
Let them railroad a Female SCOTUS nominee then lecture the rest of us about "fairness" and glass ceilings and silly pink knit caps...
(07-09-2018 04:49 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: I mean I don't want Roe or Obergefell overturned, and will be sad for me when it happens, but it's happening. What actually could have an affect on me personally is when they overturn Chevron Deference and an activist right wing court will have the ability to overrule nearly any executive agency action they want to.
I really don't care too much, one way or the other, about Roe or Obergefell.
But the Chevron deference standard really needs to be overturned. This country is being micromanaged by nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats who have way, way too much power. Congress has yielded far too much power to them. They need their wings clipped and badly. I would favor changing the Administrative Procedure Act to provide:
1) all new agency-rule making is subject to congressional review before taking effect, automatically in cases where the dollar amount of the impact is greater than some threshold number, and by petition of 20% of the members of either house of congress otherwise;
2) all agencies and all of their existing regulations are subject to sunset review every ten years; and
3) administrative law judges (ALJs) who report ultimately to the executive director of the agency cannot provide the impartial tribunal required for procedural due process, and therefore either 1) follow Texas and Oregon (strange pair) in establishing a separate executive office of administrative hearings to try all disputes, or better 2) follow the European example and establish Article III administrative law courts in each federal judicial district, to have original jurisdiction over all administrative causes of action arising in their district, with appeal up through the district court in and for that district.
All this sounds great and all, but the truth of the matter is the real reason the right now wants Chevron gone is because the courts have been pushed further and further right in the last 20 years or so. If the opposite were true and the courts were moving further and further left no way would they want all those "activist judges" to have the power to overrule any executive agency action they disagree with. This is the long game the right has been playing, and kudos to them it worked. They'll likely be able to get rid of Chevron, and then when the Dems do get back into power the activist right wing court system will be able to strike down anything and everything they want to.
So basically what you are saying is as long as those bureaucrats are leaning your way, you don't want any restraints on their power?
No, what I'm saying is the right (including Scalia) was just fine with and even liked Chevron until the courts started to lean heavily their way. What's funny is Chevron isn't in any way a "liberal" ruling. It came about because a left leaning judge tried to strike down something a Reagan era agency was trying to do. This is becoming a thing because the right now sees they may very well be able to stack the court for 20-30 years as way far right and now they love the idea of judicial activism. It's a great strategy. I don't like it, but they played the long game and it worked. Once they strike down Chevron it won't matter if the Dems get back in control they can just activist their way out of any agency actions they don't like until things swing back. Now super long term it would all even out because the courts will eventually shift more to the left and then the left activists will be able to take advantage of a post Chevron world.
(07-09-2018 06:00 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: No, what I'm saying is the right (including Scalia) was just fine with and even liked Chevron until the courts started to lean heavily their way. What's funny is Chevron isn't in any way a "liberal" ruling. It came about because a left leaning judge tried to strike down something a Reagan era agency was trying to do. This is becoming a thing because the right now sees they may very well be able to stack the court for 20-30 years as way far right and now they love the idea of judicial activism. It's a great strategy. I don't like it, but they played the long game and it worked. Once they strike down Chevron it won't matter if the Dems get back in control they can just activist their way out of any agency actions they don't like until things swing back. Now super long term it would all even out because the courts will eventually shift more to the left and then the left activists will be able to take advantage of a post Chevron world.
So, couch it in left/right terms all you want. My bottom line--A democratic republic works better the more accountable decision makers are to the public. And our administrative law system violates that accountability.
(07-09-2018 06:00 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: No, what I'm saying is the right (including Scalia) was just fine with and even liked Chevron until the courts started to lean heavily their way. What's funny is Chevron isn't in any way a "liberal" ruling. It came about because a left leaning judge tried to strike down something a Reagan era agency was trying to do. This is becoming a thing because the right now sees they may very well be able to stack the court for 20-30 years as way far right and now they love the idea of judicial activism. It's a great strategy. I don't like it, but they played the long game and it worked. Once they strike down Chevron it won't matter if the Dems get back in control they can just activist their way out of any agency actions they don't like until things swing back. Now super long term it would all even out because the courts will eventually shift more to the left and then the left activists will be able to take advantage of a post Chevron world.
So, couch it in left/right terms all you want. My bottom line--A democratic republic works better the more accountable decision makers are to the public. And our administrative law system violates that accountability.
Trey Gowdy is on Fox right now......and it's a shame his take on the situation is what many of us think in real terms.....
that guy is solid.....and why he's saying "adios".....I don't blame him one bit.....
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2018 06:25 PM by stinkfist.)
(07-09-2018 06:00 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: No, what I'm saying is the right (including Scalia) was just fine with and even liked Chevron until the courts started to lean heavily their way. What's funny is Chevron isn't in any way a "liberal" ruling. It came about because a left leaning judge tried to strike down something a Reagan era agency was trying to do. This is becoming a thing because the right now sees they may very well be able to stack the court for 20-30 years as way far right and now they love the idea of judicial activism. It's a great strategy. I don't like it, but they played the long game and it worked. Once they strike down Chevron it won't matter if the Dems get back in control they can just activist their way out of any agency actions they don't like until things swing back. Now super long term it would all even out because the courts will eventually shift more to the left and then the left activists will be able to take advantage of a post Chevron world.
So, couch it in left/right terms all you want. My bottom line--A democratic republic works better the more accountable decision makers are to the public. And our administrative law system violates that accountability.
And Supreme court judges are accountable to the public after they are appointed in what way exactly?
(07-09-2018 06:00 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: No, what I'm saying is the right (including Scalia) was just fine with and even liked Chevron until the courts started to lean heavily their way. What's funny is Chevron isn't in any way a "liberal" ruling. It came about because a left leaning judge tried to strike down something a Reagan era agency was trying to do. This is becoming a thing because the right now sees they may very well be able to stack the court for 20-30 years as way far right and now they love the idea of judicial activism. It's a great strategy. I don't like it, but they played the long game and it worked. Once they strike down Chevron it won't matter if the Dems get back in control they can just activist their way out of any agency actions they don't like until things swing back. Now super long term it would all even out because the courts will eventually shift more to the left and then the left activists will be able to take advantage of a post Chevron world.
So, couch it in left/right terms all you want. My bottom line--A democratic republic works better the more accountable decision makers are to the public. And our administrative law system violates that accountability.
And Supreme court judges are accountable to the public after they are appointed in what way exactly?
they're not......that is XACLY! correct.....that's the power of being anointed....
(07-09-2018 06:00 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: No, what I'm saying is the right (including Scalia) was just fine with and even liked Chevron until the courts started to lean heavily their way. What's funny is Chevron isn't in any way a "liberal" ruling. It came about because a left leaning judge tried to strike down something a Reagan era agency was trying to do. This is becoming a thing because the right now sees they may very well be able to stack the court for 20-30 years as way far right and now they love the idea of judicial activism. It's a great strategy. I don't like it, but they played the long game and it worked. Once they strike down Chevron it won't matter if the Dems get back in control they can just activist their way out of any agency actions they don't like until things swing back. Now super long term it would all even out because the courts will eventually shift more to the left and then the left activists will be able to take advantage of a post Chevron world.
So, couch it in left/right terms all you want. My bottom line--A democratic republic works better the more accountable decision makers are to the public. And our administrative law system violates that accountability.
And Supreme court judges are accountable to the public after they are appointed in what way exactly?
My proposals are aimed at making the agencies accountable to congress, who, last time I checked, were elected. And the Article III administrative law court judges would, of course, be federal judges, but they would be far more independent an objective than an ALJ. Plus moving disputes out into the circuits would avoid a lot of the inbred DC beltway mentality.
Buzz at the US courthouse in DC: Brett Kavanaugh spotted leaving in a black sedan accompanied by four black SUVs with security agents presumed to be Secret Service, per source.
(07-09-2018 06:53 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: Buzz at the US courthouse in DC: Brett Kavanaugh spotted leaving in a black sedan accompanied by four black SUVs with security agents presumed to be Secret Service, per source.
I'm fairly certain you can book him for this one....
(07-09-2018 06:00 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: No, what I'm saying is the right (including Scalia) was just fine with and even liked Chevron until the courts started to lean heavily their way. What's funny is Chevron isn't in any way a "liberal" ruling. It came about because a left leaning judge tried to strike down something a Reagan era agency was trying to do. This is becoming a thing because the right now sees they may very well be able to stack the court for 20-30 years as way far right and now they love the idea of judicial activism. It's a great strategy. I don't like it, but they played the long game and it worked. Once they strike down Chevron it won't matter if the Dems get back in control they can just activist their way out of any agency actions they don't like until things swing back. Now super long term it would all even out because the courts will eventually shift more to the left and then the left activists will be able to take advantage of a post Chevron world.
So, couch it in left/right terms all you want. My bottom line--A democratic republic works better the more accountable decision makers are to the public. And our administrative law system violates that accountability.
And Supreme court judges are accountable to the public after they are appointed in what way exactly?
My proposals are aimed at making the agencies accountable to congress, who, last time I checked, were elected. And the Article III administrative law court judges would, of course, be federal judges, but they would be far more independent an objective than an ALJ. Plus moving disputes out into the circuits would avoid a lot of the inbred DC beltway mentality.
I don't actually think your proposals are bad, but I don't think your proposals are what the plan is. The plan is almost assuredly what I'm saying it is, throw out Chevron, and then have widespread judicial activism on whichever side controls the courts (which will be the right for a while).
(07-09-2018 07:07 PM)HuskyU Wrote: Barrett and Kethledge confirmed at home.
Sounds like Kavanaugh. Poor Hardiman...First Runner-Up yet again.
That is terrible news. If it is Kavanaugh then Trump has not done his homework. Kavanaugh is not the equal of Gorsuch. Kavanaugh is an Establishment/Swamp pick. Picks like Kavanaugh is exactly why some of us wouldn't support Trump during the election. We don't need another Roberts.
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2018 07:29 PM by Side Show Joe.)
(07-09-2018 07:07 PM)HuskyU Wrote: Barrett and Kethledge confirmed at home.
Sounds like Kavanaugh. Poor Hardiman...First Runner-Up yet again.
That is terrible news. If it is Kavanaugh then Trump has not done his homework. Kavanaugh is not the equal of Gorsuch. Kavanaugh is an Establishment/Swamp pick. Picks like Kavanaugh is exactly why some of us wouldn't support Trump during the election. We don't need another Roberts.
If Hillary won, you would have Garland and some other Leftest...
![[Image: 5775bc383168e8464088c3ce76a1e42c5558f69c...72ffd7.jpg]](https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5775bc383168e8464088c3ce76a1e42c5558f69ca5c42a9ce707cda53872ffd7.jpg)
