Coffee Talk V: The Final Battle

[esls79]

Guess fucking up their own country wasn't quite evil enough. They've gone global.

This is a way bigger decision than last weeks gun and abortion rulings. This has far reaching implications on how the government is run. This may be the second worst ruling in my lifetime behind Citizens United.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

This is a way bigger decision than last weeks gun and abortion rulings. This has far reaching implications on how the government is run. This may be the second worst ruling in my lifetime behind Citizens United.

Doesn’t this ruling kind of rein in the power of the executive and executive orders?

 

[esls79]

So supposed experts in the field at the EPA can no longer have a say in environmental policy but representatives like AOC and Lauren Bobert are now tasked with the job?

I see where the court is going with this but at the same time what good are the agencies now if everything needs to be codified via legislative action? And yes, this is a check in executive power but Congress needs to step up and take the void. That’s not gonna happen.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Doesn’t this ruling kind of rein in the power of the executive and executive orders?

No, the premise they're driving at - which they stopped short of saying explicitly in this ruling but which opens up a host of legal challenges - is whether a government or quasi-government (think Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) agency which has been explicitly created by Congress and also given a broad stated purpose by Congress can implement its own rules to reach that purpose.

Although this ruling only addresses what it refers to as "major" rules, the definition of "major" is decidedly unclear.

What they're saying in this decision is that although Congress may have given an explicit guiding directive to an agency like the EPA, SEC, FDA, FAA, etc., the historical practice of allowing the agency - presumably composed of experts in the related field - to draft and enforce its rules in order to meet its Congressional mandated directive is unconstitutional if it is a "major" change.

What they're trying to do is make it so that if politicians - clearly not experts in the majority of fields (I say that even without snark here because obviously most of us aren't experts in all of science, finance, medicine, etc.) - don't give explicit permission to an agency to do X, that agency can't do X, even though it could be a key step towards achieving its mandate.

It's a terrifying principle because the majority of our tax code, securities rules, medical rules (with the obvious recent exception), food safety regulations, etc. are enforced via agency directive rather than by explicit Congressional authority, because of the obvious difficulty in having something as menial as say the authorization of a new prescription medication by the FDA require a bill to pass Congress explicitly authorizing that medicine instead of allowing the FDA to approve it.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

No, the premise they're driving at - which they stopped short of saying explicitly in this ruling but which opens up a host of legal challenges - is whether a government or quasi-government (think Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) agency which has been explicitly created by Congress and also given a broad stated purpose by Congress can implement its own rules to reach that purpose.

Although this ruling only addresses what it refers to as "major" rules, the definition of "major" is decidedly unclear.

What they're saying in this decision is that although Congress may have given an explicit guiding directive to an agency like the EPA, SEC, FDA, FAA, etc., the historical practice of allowing the agency - presumably composed of experts in the related field - to draft and enforce its rules in order to meet its Congressional mandated directive is unconstitutional if it is a "major" change.

What they're trying to do is make it so that if politicians - clearly not experts in the majority of fields (I say that even without snark here because obviously most of us aren't experts in all of science, finance, medicine, etc.) - don't give explicit permission to an agency to do X, that agency can't do X, even though it could be a key step towards achieving its mandate.

It's a terrifying principle because the majority of our tax code, securities rules, medical rules (with the obvious recent exception), food safety regulations, etc. are enforced via agency directive rather than by explicit Congressional authority, because of the obvious difficulty in having something as menial as say the authorization of a new prescription medication by the FDA require a bill to pass Congress explicitly authorizing that medicine instead of allowing the FDA to approve it.

Great explanation.

 

[dash]

Great explanation.

No kidding - Always appreciate @sabresfaninthesouth contributions to this thread

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

This one is of importance to me. I can't say where I work for obvious reasons, but I can say broadly that I work in a field which is heavily regulated (and therefore heavily litigated) and could be subject to legal challenges based on this principle.

Luckily I'm just a worker bee and not a company lawyer

 

[dash]

Here's the thing - If you associate with neo-Nazis, you're pretty much a neo-Nazi.

 

[forty_three]

Here's the thing - If you associate with neo-Nazis, you're pretty much a neo-Nazi.

 

[blindbaby]

Here's the thing - If you associate with neo-Nazis, you're pretty much a neo-Nazi.

He's marching with Topp? This is spinning out of control now.

 

[forty_three]

Nelson Piquet says racial slur aimed at Lewis Hamilton had no racist intent | CNN

Former F1 driver Nelson Piquet has apologized for his racial slur aimed at Lewis Hamilton and said his comments had no racist intent.

www.cnn.com

*sigh*

Reigning world champion* Max Verstappen is dating Nelson Piquet's daughter. Max was asked about it today.

Verstappen: Piquet "definitely not a racist" but Hamilton comment "not correct"

Max Verstappen says Nelson Piquet’s comment made towards Lewis Hamilton was “not correct”, but the three-time Formula 1 world champion is “definitely not a racist”.

www.autosport.com

“As he said, it can be interpreted in two ways, and of course people pick up on the bad side and it gets really blown out of proportion, because I know Nelson personally."

 

[buffhockey]

Just when you thought people couldn’t be that dumb, there is this one.

 

[forty_three]

 

[puckhead]

 

[dash]

This doesn't seem ideal...

 

[forty_three]

 

[blindbaby]

I don't believe Cassidy, but I sure believe Rudy!!

 

[buffhockey]

Speaking of Rudy -


Listed on mypillow.com

 

[forty_three]

 

[mooger_35]