The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Held: [...] Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.
I'm too busy to look it up, but is this a narrow ruling or is Chevron dead?
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
Quote:
Held: The Government’s rescission of [the Migrant Protection Protocols] did not violate section 1225 of the [Immigration and Nationality Act], and the October 29 [2021] Memoranda constituted final agency action.
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
4/5 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Quote:
Held: [...] Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.
I'm too busy to look it up, but is this a narrow ruling or is Chevron dead?
The SCOTUSblog people are saying it was only mentioned four times, all by the dissent, so Chevron lives to see another day I guess. I'm still not sure if there are five votes to overturn it yet.
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
The major questions doctrine is so mendacious. Determining what are "decisions of vast economic and political significance" is entirely subjective, and it sets up this Court to use that subjectivity to restrain agency actions that Democrats like, but allow agency actions that Republicans like. Which is ironic in this case since it gets everyone to agree that AGW is a "decision of vast economic and political significance".
The right wing may have no need to overturn Chevron if they can get what they like by leveraging this doctrine.
Joined: Fri January 04, 2013 1:46 am Posts: 2837 Location: Connecticut
Green Habit wrote:
Quote:
Held: The Government’s rescission of [the Migrant Protection Protocols] did not violate section 1225 of the [Immigration and Nationality Act], and the October 29 [2021] Memoranda constituted final agency action.
Roberts wrote it, and he and Kavanaugh crossed over to take this down.
So many rulings these last couple of weeks, but is this is the only one “conservatives” (or the right) didn’t win? Seems the right’s long game with the courts is really paying off for them. And what’s crazy to me is that the base will probably credit Trump since he appointed 3 of these justices, but continue to hate on Mitch McConnell even though he’s the one who made this happen for them (seems to me, anyway).
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
Final orders list is on fire: Sotomayor dissenting from denial of cert on a whole bunch of AEDPA and qualified immunity cases, and Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch massively pissing me off in suggesting that religious objections to vaccination must be granted.
Did anyone ever stumble across an objective, nonpartisan analysis of the Dobbs decision (overturning Roe)? Everything I've read seems to be an emotional appeal from one side or the other and not really cutting through the legalese of the opinions.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
Bi_3 wrote:
Did anyone ever stumble across an objective, nonpartisan analysis of the Dobbs decision (overturning Roe)? Everything I've read seems to be an emotional appeal from one side or the other and not really cutting through the legalese of the opinions.
Let me explain:
The "states" are weaker and more accountable to the will of their voters. The State (US government) should be dismantled so that no one on either side can use it to force its agenda on other peoples in far away regions. Do you want to live in a place with people that share your values, or are you just another missionary imperialist insisting that the entire world adopt your worldview?
"B-but what about muh slavery!? Don't you know states had slavery once!" I hear someone screech like a buffoon.
If your state decides slavery is legal again, move somewhere else, or just go burn down the governor's mansion. You would almost certainly have the power to do that, unlike now, where you're at the mercy of an unapproachably vast state that hates you and actively works against your interests.
"But what about muh rights?!"
You don't have rights, you have power. The State has power. Weaken state power and seek your own power.
Once we have to reversed the trend toward increasingly large globalist government (which includes corporations), then we can work on dismantling nationalism, then regionalism, then the city-states and so on, until the individual is free at last!
btw none of this will work.
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22548 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
I'm sure a woman forced to risk her life, health, emotional well-being, and financial standing to carry to term a potential life that she does not want will calm the fuck down once she understands how the 14th Amendment doesn't actually provide substantive due process protections for her right to privacy.
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47163 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Bi_3 wrote:
Did anyone ever stumble across an objective, nonpartisan analysis of the Dobbs decision (overturning Roe)? Everything I've read seems to be an emotional appeal from one side or the other and not really cutting through the legalese of the opinions.
Stuff You Should Know just did an episode called “A Dispassionate Look at Roe v Wade.” At the end they talk about last week’s ruling. It’s a good listen.
Did anyone ever stumble across an objective, nonpartisan analysis of the Dobbs decision (overturning Roe)? Everything I've read seems to be an emotional appeal from one side or the other and not really cutting through the legalese of the opinions.
Stuff You Should Know just did an episode called “A Dispassionate Look at Roe v Wade.” At the end they talk about last week’s ruling. It’s a good listen.
thanks for being the adult in the room.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum