The Supreme Court Destroyed The Government While You Weren't Looking

[@LegalEagle]

What long-held doctrine will be the next to fall? 💡Learn actively with Brilliant! brilliant.org/legaleagle ⚖ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam

[@jeremywalsh7854]

This is great. Congress has been lazy for decades and has sent bills over without thinking. This issue has been thought about for at least 25 years when I was in law school. This is the same as Roe which should have been codified by Congress. Stop Lazy Law Makers

[@john_blues]

You need to do a movie/TV show review. All of these real life court decisions are making me sad.

[@markcinco8405]

DEFINITELY the doctrine of the weak-kneed unarmed lib. When justice becomes a cruel joke, Justices become disgraced late Justices. Probably end up being some first person RPG whiz with a John Conner complex. Suddenly Harris gets six picks. 🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳

[@henrythegreatamerican8136]

And if we had a real president in there he would have came out fighting against these Supreme Court decisions while finding a way to increase the number of justices.

[@Gauldame]

Look at the legal goals in Project 2025 and see what they haven't checked off their list. They're going down it like a honey do.

[@merdufer]

I'm so glad America has the separation of powers into three branches, the King, the King's cronies, and the jesters.

[@paulallen2680]

The king’s cronies are also in congress and using their filibuster which is why nothing ever gets done.

[@satratic127]

The clowns, the jokers, and the jesters

[@Respectable_Username]

"Clowns to the left of me; Jokers to the right. Here I am stuck in the middle with you" 🫠

[@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket]

Biden is hardly a King, even in a constitutional Monarchy he has nowhere near the powers. In Europe lots of PM's can call for emergency dissolution of the government; in the UK the royals can do that as well. We have no such mechanism. It's you stay in office until you're voted out, or in theory removed by your peers in a trial like we saw Donnie2times go through twice (hence the name).

[@TheLRRPS]

Ahh, your right, the goverment didn't work at all 40 years ago. I am so, so tired of all the hyperbole.

[@Ford_prefect_42]

Remember when these idiots were shouting "facts don't care about your feelings"? Well now facts are subject to their feelings only. This is horrific

[@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea8932]

Ah yes, following the 10th amendment and making it so that agencies can't conjure laws out of thin air without the approval of the legislature is so horrific.

[@joaquinbaca1880]

You dont understand how a goverment funtions ​@@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea8932

[@Bestoftherest222]

What they meant to say is "Fact dont care about feelings, but Facts care about money... lots of lots of money to influence ones opinion."

[@BrandanLee]

I'm no expert, but... I'm the decider of all laws ever.

[@henrythegreatamerican8136]

I also remember when every other comment didn't get censored on youtube.

[@Myder_Dragon]

So let me get this straight. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Congress passes a law, lets say "keep the air clean". The executive branch appoints an agency to carry out that law. That agency recruits scientists to determine if the air is clean or not and what steps are needed to fix it. But now some random company can just say they don't like that law and a judge, who isn't a scientist, can just agree with them? Because of course congress and the agency appointed can't cover every single instance or possibly loop hole to a new law, so of course there will be "ambiguity". And now even long standing laws don't matter because its now "at the time of harm" so a newly created shell company can just say "this law is hurting my business now I want a judge to look over it" and a judge over in the middle of nowhere can just strike it down.

[@giglioflex]

Yep and with 1/3rd of Judges being hand picked by the Federalist Society (many wholely unqualified) they are likely to rule in favor of the company.

[@Myder_Dragon]

@@giglioflex I LOVE CORPERATE GREED I LOVE NOT BEING ABLE TO BREATH SO A BILLIONARE DOESN'T HAVE TO REGULATE THEIR FACTORIES

[@JackDoyle]

Correct. This can be avoided if Congress passes non-ambiguous laws. It's not the Executive branch's job to interpret or create.

[@Sniperbear13]

@@Myder_Dragon you have to pay for the right to breathe. not breathing is gonna be a poor people problem.

[@user-mg4cn6wm1u]

It's worse then that. See, the Supreme Court recently also ruled that federal employees can be given gifts after making a decision. So not only does that middle of nowhere judge get to rule on this, they will then suddenly find themselves offered an all expenses paid luxury trip to the Bahamas.

[@justindoud8842]

Just have to point out the naked hypocrisy of the court here. Their argument when they ruled on presidential immunity was that if a president had to be concerned in anyway about criminal prosecution, it would excessively hamper their ability to perform their duties as president. Such a vulnerability would make it so that the president would not be vigorous and energetic in accordance with the framers’ vision, and would undermine the separation of powers, or so they argued. But when it comes to the ability of the executive to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress, the court here seems to think it appropriate that the executive branch be endlessly challenged and re-challenged on it’s implementation of the law. It’s very hard not to view the court as an openly activist institution at this point.

[@Quickturealeyes]

The conservative justices have been activist justices since the mid-90s. The work needed for Project 2025 has been happening since Reagan; it's just now in its end stages

[@gravygraves5112]

It's been an activist institution since the early 20th. Both sides have been sticking justices in that are particularly partial one way or the other.

[@LinkMarioSamus]

The worst part is none of Trump’s indictments had anything to do with actually running the country.

[@CordialH]

@@gravygraves5112 God that is such a mischaracterization of the truth. Like pretending that if one side is taking advantage of the take a penny leave a penny tray and the other side shot the cashier in the face and took everything from the register that "both sides are the same."

[@gravygraves5112]

@@CordialH is it really though or are you just partial to some of the past courts rulings?

[@navinvent]

There are 1.6 Billion organic compounds possible, EPA bans 80,000 compounds from the environment. Imagine requiring the congress to debate and approve bans of all of these one by one or by narrow group, instead of by scientific principles.

[@The2012Aceman]

Yea, Congress is simply too busy to do something like that. Who has time to decide issues for the people when you're..... what's the thing they've done in the past 20 years worth a damn? And I mean our Elected Representatives, not their bill-writing interns and PAC-placed staff.

[@Tabrias07]

that sounds like a good thing

[@OldManShoutsAtClouds]

Then congress needs to step up and do their jobs instead of campaigning for the majority of their time. They can pass a law to create a streamlined process.

[@jennalove6755]

@@Tabrias07 literally impossible you mean?

[@jennalove6755]

@@OldManShoutsAtClouds counting to one billion if you counted one number every second would take 33 years without stopping. Are you saying there is any way of making their rulings on each compound take less than a second?

[@JohnSmith-qm4go]

I'm in my 70s. I can remember when OSHA was pretty much ignored. I started working in factories at 15 during the summer when school was out. I was big for my age and strong and companies didn't really care if you were a little under the age limit because nobody was going to look. I remember working in a freon canning factory one summer. I later learned someone was killed there every year in an industrial accident. I could see why. Belts & gears didn't have covers, It wasn't too many years after that that OSHA started flexing their muscle. I wonder how many lives would have been saved, how many serious injuries would have been prevented if OSHA had been stronger sooner. BTW true to form a person got killed that summer. I soo appreciate what OSHA has done for the worker. If you're sitting in an office where the most serious thing that can happen to you is a paper cut, you won't appreciate this comment, but if you are older, workie in a factory, & remember what it was like before OSHA you will agree.. Ever since Citizens United the Extreme Court has been trying to burn down our democracy & take away the little guy's rights.

[@Hirohitorunguard]

OSHA must be protected however possible. Corporate ghouls cannot be allowed to destroy it.

[@jordanwala9472]

Thank you for sharing your experience and perspective, just wanted to let ya know!

[@caseyo6033]

But the poor business owner lost profits... Don't we now live in a society where the "economy" is more important that its citizens?

[@ronblack7870]

osha has far too many rules. they can fine a company for a lid missing on a garbage can . trivial shit like that .

[@zerieth6620]

​@@ronblack7870 Nice strawman but OSHA can't fine for a missing garbage lid. They can fine for missing a lid on a container that has something like oil in it, which is hazardous when spilled.

[@Mysterios1989]

What surprises me, as a lawyer from outside the US, the most is that these fundamental principles in the US are based upon court cases, and so recent court cases at that. As a German lawyer myself, the idea of Chevron is simply a law here. § 40 VwVfG (the administrative procedure act) says that when a (governmental) law includes power of discretion (Ermessen) to the government, the government has to follow this discretion with the goal of the regulation and the limitation of the law in mind, and the courts can only check if the governmental agency abused that power outside their limitation of interpretation. And the power of discretion is given when the law uses words like "may" or "can". That such a basic idea of a governmental system as the Chevron deference is not regulated basically on one of the first pages of the law-book about "how the government works" is beyond baffling.

[@Necrotic99]

Let not common sense stop you when you have to shove your own ideas and principles down other peoples throat...

[@quietreason8679]

Danish law does the same, the legislature will often set the outer framework of rules and then grant ministers of government the authority to further specify those rules and how they are to be implemented.

[@l4nd3r]

That's the thing, US constitution doesn't allow this per se, but passing constitutional amendments is really hard in the USA, even harder (or impossible) these days. So the rule is that the US congress can't give away power to agencies. One way that can kinda keep the system as it is if congress creates agencies to oversee those executive agencies, but that's terrible for efficiency, costs and separation of powers.

[@baneofbanes]

Welcome to the Common Law system

[@neilbiggs1353]

@@baneofbanes Only in the US - Pretty sure most common law jurisdictions defer this sort of thing to experts, the UK Food Standards Agency is so much more powerful than the US FDA, even though it has a much narrower portfolio

[@KingBobXVI]

As a constitutional lawyer, at what point do you start telling your clients "bribe the judge" as legal advice? I mean, it's the M.O. of this court now. Oh, sorry, I mean "provide gratuities".

[@clasherking4528]

No no it's called "tipping your judge" kind of like don't forget to tip your waitress but for legal situations

[@drno4837]

what do you mean "start" judges in America are picked based on their political ideology not on a knowledge of the law, and bribing them by pandering to their agenda is all that ever happens here.

[@giniredastro7064]

Salas Zulueta

[@Sephiroth144]

About 2 weeks ago, apparently.

[@BatkoNashBandera774]

the moment your bank account surpasses 12 digits you can safely just buy the courts.

[@davidferencz9640]

I worked in the food industry for over 30 years. The regulations that came out of the FDA and OSHA meant that the public was getting safe food and that workers were being treated fairly in a safe working environment. I knew of many food processing plants that were always trying to cut corners. Those regulations allowed some of those plants to be shut down for food safety reasons and some for worker safety reasons. When I saw that Chevron was struck down, I immediately found myself wondering when we would start seeing problems in our food supply as companies started challenging food safety regulations.

[@kpro8908]

This decisiok does not do anything to roll back those regulations.

[@jdl13b]

This just keeps getting worse and worse. I hadn't even thought so far as the food supply.

[@GalacticStarForge42]

@@jdl13b My worry is the OSHA, which regulates workplace safety. Justice Thomas Clarence has said publicly that he believes the agency is unconstitutional. Can’t wait for them to rule on that.

[@SomeYouTubeTraveler]

@@GalacticStarForge42 I'm on the safety team at the factory I work at, and our safety manager is _already_ the most underappreciated person in the company. She has to fight like mad just to get a single employee to try and be safe around here. Her only leverage to get anything done (beyond trusting whatever current plant manager to back her up) is "OSHA says we have to." Without even that... yeah, we're doomed.

[@heroman2372]

"This law hurts my business and I would like a judge to overturn it" sounds like the first company minded thought that would pop in every CEO's mind

[@RobertSwick]

The fact that this ruling came immediately after the court stated that "gratuities" to public officials were not considered bribes says all we need to know about the reason for the decision.

[@SabertoothedTiger69]

Oh... And I thought we were cooked before. I guess we're finally in a third world country

[@tanepukenga1421]

@@SabertoothedTiger69 Ya have been for awhile, it's only the constant "patriot" propaganda that gets people to think otherwise.

[@JanKowalski-wb8ih]

Quality of life is higher in Poland than the US right now, that tells you sth

[@nunyabusiness22]

commenting to bump this and the video up

[@louiseckstark31]

you mean when the court went you charged the dude with the wrong statue and thus opened him up to a different legal defense?

[@Deedonis]

Legal Eagle early videos: "Here's som good tips on studying to become a lawyer" Legal Eagle late videos: "Okay, here's how the law is effed up this week"

[@SabertoothedTiger69]

I mean, if he's right, he's right

[@ChristmasCarolyn]

Also gradually seeing his beard grow and turn white in the process. The stress is evident. 😢

[@KingBobXVI]

I've been low-key annoyed by some of his videos for the apparent benefit of the doubt he's given to conservative judges on the supreme court, and to the system as a whole despite its obvious flaws. It's nice to see the gloves come off a bit, even if it did take way, way too long.

[@mikef6945]

Is the host jack ryan from Amazon's hit tv show jack ryan?

[@kdog2646]

​@@KingBobXVIwell he is regularly wrong.

[@googleuser7219]

From a focused 2A perspective, this could lead to judges deciding what counts as what kind of firearm based on their own judgement rather than a technical definition correct?

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

almost certainly yes.

[@reuvencooper8170]

Or that could make a law about it like is meant to be done.

[@Visual217]

They cannot, because the laws surrounding firearms are generally pretty clear already. The ATF has already taken advantage of Chevron to redefine machine guns, short barreled rifles, frames and receivers with impunity.

[@CidVeldoril]

@@Visual217 Well...in theory SCOTUS could just decide that all gun regulations are unconstitutional and that'd be that. SCOTUS defines stuff all the time. For example when they decided that a tomato may be a fruit, but for tax purposes counts as a veggie.

[@Visual217]

@@CidVeldoril ruling unconstitutionality is not the same as redefining. They could indeed rule a majority of gun control laws as unconstitutional and they'd be correct in doing so.

[@KBRoller]

So... if I'm understanding this correctly... the Supreme Court of judges has decided that judges should be the only people to make any regulatory decisions when Congress is unclear or vague about any and all details, because (1) the law is the only information anyone needs to make good decisions about any regulations ever, and (2) judges have advisors and are therefore definitely capable of fully understanding, appreciating, considering, and caring about what every expert advisor tells them when making said decisions? In other words.... "we are judges, and therefore we believe judges know everything needed to make decisions about anything, because we believe we know everything". So in a short period of time, the Supreme Court has decided (a) the President is untouchable in both civil *and* criminal acts, basically regardless of what they've done; and (b) expertise doesn't matter, regulations should be decided always and solely on the basis of what a judge knows and wants. ...and...there are *still* people who really don't see the fascist writing on the wall? Really, truly?

[@bwofficial1776]

The parties petitioning the Court will bring expert witnesses. There isn't any fascist writing.

[@jasoncampbell4203]

@kbroller I don't think you know anything about fascism

[@davechongle]

@@bwofficial1776you can call almost ANYONE as an expert witness. experts being hired to do their job in a government setting are 1000x more reliable and valid than "experts" whos job is to testify in favor of whoever is paying them. thats such a laughable notion that "expert" witnesses would be reliably nonpartisan, be an actual experienced expert, and actually be listened to. judges get to set the law now, they can just ignore an expert witness, or worse, they could listen to an "expert" who hasnt worked in their field for a decade and just testifies as their job. no matter how you put it, this is a terrible decision with terrible consequences. it only gives judges like them more power over the every day life of citizens, and gives even more power to bribes, as if it already wasnt a problem.

[@cybershadow136]

@@bwofficial1776 And if the judge is biased or has a conflict of interest? Also the law doesn't require that the parties bring expert witnesses, they can just bring very charismatic idiots. A judge might not be able to understand why a charismatic idiot's point doesn't make sense, and experts aren't always able to explain things clearly in a court of law (academia uses its own methods for research and truth which aren't always easily translated into layman's terms).

[@davechongle]

@@jasoncampbell4203i mean, this has happened before, in the landmark case of fascism, germany. one wing of the government consolidated power until they were able to influence enough people to over take the ruling party. they called people who were afraid of the Nazi's "alarmists" or denegrated their character by calling them communist or jewish. kind of like how some people these days act towards democrats and lefties.

[@jonathanadams5903]

At last the trifecta is complete! The law can finally be written by idiots, interpreted by idiots, and enforced by idiots.

[@UnashamedCaliforniagirl]

It has been for a long time 😂

[@garbonomics]

This is finally the most responsible Supreme Court we’ve had for generations. I know you lefties loved the court when they had those sweeping leftist majorities that nearly ruined the country. Now that the shoes on the other foot as we finally have a conservative majority is hilarious seeing you all do an about face.

[@giggabiite4417]

@@UnashamedCaliforniagirl it was stupid before, but now its idiotic

[@bobdan9856]

You will never notice the difference. Anyone who is smart and capable is not working for the government.

[@ThatBugBehindYou]

So, just to be clear, you think that the idiots here are judges in official courts, not the way it worked with Chevron where the "not idiots" where just people employed by groups given power by government to screw you over without you having access to anything you get in a normal court?

[@PeacefulZealot]

Who could’ve imagined unchallengeable, unelected lifetime appointments would be a problem?!

[@GZilla311]

Don’t worry, they can be impeached. What’s that? Getting a successful impeachment is next to impossible in the best of times, which these very much are not? Welp.

[@PeacefulZealot]

@@GZilla311 It’s almost like this was always going to be a liability and is now destroying our damn democracy. Ugh.

[@walmartpimp2]

Not the slave owning tax evading founding fathers.

[@HowToChangeName]

Thats fine as that guaranteed their decision would be unmotivated by parties, well assuming there's ethical guidelines enforced on these lifetime lords you dont elect or even know until its too late

[@seandobbins2231]

The not so fun fact is that such lifetime appointments aren't even in the constitution, as it was included through statutory law. Honestly, the constitution itself doesn't say that much about how the Supreme Court would work, as it was left to Congress to decide that. And Congress still has the power to decide that today, eliminating those lifetime appointments if they choose. The problem there, of course, is that with only two rigidly opposed parties such lifetime appointments secure power for longer periods for said factions so they prefer this sort of tug of war for these crazily designed positions.

[@jencraw1924]

Everytime I see Reagan’s name brought up I know shit is about to go some horrible direction :(

[@dakawans83]

We've been going a horrible direction, it's time to pick a different one.

[@nubbs4753]

We went from “leave it to the experts” to “leave it to the people uniquely unqualified to be making these decisions.

[@me-myself-i787]

Courts have expert witnesses.

[@XenomorphsWrath]

@@me-myself-i787 like the other two branches of power: They are not required to listen to them.

[@thomasweatherford5125]

As she said, leave it to the lawyers who answer to the stock holders.

[@JMSginoclave]

@@me-myself-i787 As anyone who has worked in administration or the judicial system can tell you, there's a reason the executive has organizations *composed* of experts to make decisions regarding implementation in their fields. "Expert witnesses" deliver recommendations, not decisions, and the reasoning behind their recommendations are often more extensive than a judge's attention span to new things/willingness to learn the basics of a field they know nothing about, thus hurting their pride/standing.

[@36inc]

@@JJ-jn5lr who cares what random people think- other people know things- i trust based on merit not based on some vague and childish misunderstanding of fair law. law is spaghetti code- it breaks apart because you cant build a structure that wont break apart eventually. order is always subject to entropy, it simply cant last- the method we had allowed that fluidity to harmonize. if youre a fool youll see the world as chaos in need of being reigned in. if youre smart you know you cant control chaos so you find the lil anarchies and try to learn how to go with it for everything's betterment. Adapt, collaborate, optimize. our government now cant do that they just doomed it to bureaucratic jenga. whi ch was already over burdened by the way. i guess no one told the right side of the aisle that you cant separate power and responsibility- they are the same thing like space/time aspects of them are simply melted into eachother. not defering to field experts will cause brain drain. fascist play book shame and banish the experts and spread fear of education. you are being conned.

[@haolik1297]

Just to give you an idea of what you can look forward to: in the last few days in China there has been a massive exposé of oil transport. The law does not specify which oils can be transported in the same trucks. This is a problem, because for years trucking companies have been emptying out a load of motor oil and then immediately refilling with cooking oil. Without even rinsing the canister in between. So the public has been eating motor oil. For years. :) This is what happens when your entire regulatory apparatus is run by bribery. And remember, it's now legal to bribe judges! Hope you like extra-virgin olive petrol and Mr. Clean eraser milk, because that's what the corporations and their lapdog judges think you deserve to eat.

[@Mohenjo_Daro_]

Didn't think this was real, but there are several reports about it coming out... China beating us to the punch line I suppose. But the fact we're heading in that direction since companies could transport cooking oils without washing their tankers in between unless you list every type stating to wash it between, or say you have to wash it if there is a change in chemistry, but then they have to wash tankers between any load since different batches of the same oil could be chemically different Only time will tell what this will do, but I don't see any good coming from it

[@Norp-i7m]

That’s the exact type of stuff I was thinking about while watching this.

[@cargopilotguy305]

@@haolik1297 “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party” Where is the administrative state ever mentioned in our constitution?

[@Jonathonson]

Been hearing about this recently. Especially since I usually eat Lao Gan Ma, which is produced there. I’m mad man, that shit was good.

[@Koranthus]

its not legal to bribe judges, you clearly didn't read the ruling on that.

[@danielmikula1375]

As a resident of Texas my entire life I've already seen the kinds of problems this causes. Back in the 90s and 00s, there was a constant, ongoing effort to regulate synthetic cannabis sold in gas stations. The law only specified specific chemicals, so every time a new substance was designated, the makers would just subtly alter the composition so that it was still outside legislative boundaries. Legislatures just can't keep up with the kind of agility that determined would-be lawbreakers can adapt. How are the same people who struggle to define the internet as "a series of tubes" supposed to tell just exactly how much of what kind of substances should be in factory emissions?

[@originalbigmike]

That is a feature, not a bug.

[@rian.errity]

The synthetic cannabis stuff has reemerged in Europe, with slight modifications to THC and CBD being sold with unknown long term effects, chemicals such as HHC, THC-P THC-JP and god knows what else. The war on drugs is over, drugs won.

[@BandGGaming]

Which is why most federal law may include a list of specifics (look at the laws establishing the DEAs power of federal drug scheduling, for example), but also typically explicitly gives agency or department heads sole discretion to regulate broad areas. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is empowered by the Clean Air Act to impose limits and mitigation strategies on pollutants emitted from motor vehicles so long as those limits take into account the available technology, impact of the pollutant, and the cost of mitigation. This cannot ever be in question

[@SusCalvin]

How detailed is state law?

[@AdamSmith-gs2dv]

And you trust a bunch of unelected unaccountable bureaucrats in DC to make decisions in good faith?

[@nottalackey3587]

I worked for the Corps of Engineers. Their regulations required all projects to have more benefits than costs to be approved. We wanted to lengthen and rebuild a bridge in Tennessee for several million dollars. A young engineer's cost benefit ratio was negative, but was sent back for revision seven times. He came to me for advice. I told him they wanted the project and they wouldn't give up until he gave a positive cost -benefit ratio and his honesty would not benefit his career. I sarcastically said just tell them that 25,000 people a year would use the picnic area with one barbeque and one basketball court that we were going to build near the end of the bridge. Both ends of the bridge were a gravel road from nowhere to nowhere with maybe 1-2 cars an hour. He followed my "advice" to the letter and the bridge was approved. In another project, the Riverdale Siphon, we diverted one river under another. And we are supposed to defer to their opinions?

[@JagNavBrett]

Clean water act: Don't pollute waterways, rivers etc...(oh hey it doesn't specifically say what we can dump haha)-------Hmmm heres some rules about what can and can't be dumped into rivers.

[@jarekgunther]

Y'all remember that joke from Futurama when they say, "Well, I know one place where the Constitution doesn't mean squat!" [cut to the Supreme Court]? ...no, I'm not implying anything. I'm just wondering if you remember.

[@Elinye]

Of course you’re not implying that Futurama is actually time-traveler Matt Groening’s autobiographical cautionary tale of what befalls humanity if America remains chained to the specter Reagan, that would be craaaazy… I, for one, welcome our Omicronian overlords.

[@chrism6880]

Where in the constitution is Chevron deference defined?

[@chrism6880]

Actually, basically every bill the federal government has ever passed has been unconstitutional

[@SpydrXIII]

you are showing us what futurama implied, implying that you also are implying this.

[@AlsadsajsAlsadsajs-vl7th]

The same place that says that I’m not allowed to have a nuke for some reason, lol

[@--Paws--]

With Clarence Thomas planning to do away OSHA, this makes it a whole lot worse. It's as though he is blatantly showing how much Thomas has been bribed by certain people and he is at their whim.

[@clarencethomas01]

Hey man, back off! You're lucky I'm on vacation...

[@niall_sanderson]

Clarence Thomas needs to be thrown in prison

[@seinquant]

you're shitting me. for real??

[@Sigil_Firebrand]

​@@niall_sandersonThat's far too good for him.

[@Chloe-dv9ns]

if this happens i will apply to work at all the restaurants he frequents and be sure to take a steaming sht in his food , since there wouldn't be osha standards to tell me what is acceptable food.

[@timothyclute6706]

Great, so experts at the EPA, FDA, NOAA, USFWS, etc... can observe, but ultimately it is up to politically appointed judges, unless explicitly stated by a law in Congress, to decide what constitutes clean air, clean water, clean soil, safe food, safe drugs, healthy wildlife populations, and so on and so on. I already give deference to EU regulatory agencies over American ones when it comes to food and drug safety. Now i will probably give them my compete deference. Better start sending your tap water into water quality testing labs and checking them compared to EU standards. Also, this court is so conservative that they are literally beckoning back to old monarchic English law for justification. What a bunch charlatans.

[@nielskorpel8860]

"monarchic English law" well they turned your president into a king recently.

[@neilbiggs1353]

I feel like this is part of the reason there is so much misinformation about the UN, WHO etc pumped in to social media. If people want to check the FDA against international equivalents they'll likely find a bunch of conspiracy drivel first

[@totallyrealcat4800]

Might as well just move to the EU. America has high quality infrastructure, but this could really negatively impact it. I've been debating leaving the US for better cost of living, but this might be what finally causes me to move. One of the reasons why I've been debating moving is the quality of the infrastructure. This could really send us down a health and safety downward spiral, which could leave us looking like China.

[@RakeshMalikWhiteCrane]

Politically appointed judges who are owned and operated by the companies who installed them...

[@somerandomgamer8504]

​@@nielskorpel8860Better yet; they reverted back to a king from the 11th century; before even Magna Carta reigned them in.

[@randallmakhanya]

seeing the USA sink like this is surreal... What the f is going on over there?

[@kdog2646]

Sink by removing power from non elected officials?

[@Kitkat-986]

Repealing Cheveron Defrence is actually based. Chevron Deference basically gave federal regulatory agencies almost unlimited power to make up new "rules" (basically unwritten laws) by stretching the interpretation of existing laws to their limit to criminalize things which aren't and shouldn't be illegal.

[@halycon404]

@@Kitkat-986 Except there was a process to challenge the Chevron Deference in the court system. It explicitly setup a mechanism to overturn bad regulations and a standard by which to judge if a regulation is bad or not. What should have been done, and what is usually done, is if SCOTUS disagrees with something like this they don't overturn the entire doctrine. They expand or narrow the ability to challenge a motion, they tweak the ruling for a desired result. SCOTUS rarely in it's entire history has packed everything up and taken it's ball home on already settled case law. When SCOTUS does it's on things like slavery and lobotomies, stuff which the time since the initial ruling has proved is a clear moral wrong. Now we can make the argument of Roe meets the historical standard for a complete about face or not, but not the Chevron Deference.

[@Kitkat-986]

@@halycon404 I saw first hand the kind of lunacy that occurred when mindless drones in the unelected bureaucracy were allowed to decide what a law meant. Nothing was safe, they could restrict lawful conduct or mandate compliance to an obscene degree and seeking remission was a complex and expensive process that involved hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyers to get each and every infringement rectified by the court. If you want to ban something, pass a law. If you want to mandate conduct, pass a law. Letting the enforcers make up new laws at a whim was always a mistake.

[@jessepadziora2157]

Same thing going on everywhere else the rich thinking they own us and everything else in this world so this is what you get lawlessness and chaos

[@stevenhiestand3520]

I maintain that Congress has been a non-functional branch for a while now. Case in point - their inability to pass even basic budgetary legislation in a timely manner let alone something major like an amendment or sweeping legislation. To compensate for the power vacuum created by a non-functioning legislature, the Executive and Judicial branches picked up the slack in the form of highly active regulatory bodies, a reliance on executive orders, and judicial opinions. Then, under Trump, the Executive branch fell through. Many positions within his administration were marked by high turnover, unsteady leadership, and some just plain went unfilled. So the entire weight of the government more or less fell on the Judicial to set policy and make decisions. Where we previously had laws and Executive leadership we now just have Judicial opinions. Now with a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court, we are seeing unchecked activism and a degradation in faith in the court.

[@doomsdayrabbit4398]

Sounds like it's about time for a new constitution, and only 217 years later than the guys who wrote the second one thought we needed.

[@orekihoutarou6107]

​@@doomsdayrabbit4398 Are you talking about the ones who explicitly wrote into their Constitution that States couldn't decide to free their slaves?

[@FriarJoe66]

Time to pack the court and rectify the situation

[@pauleohl]

@@orekihoutarou6107 What exactly are you referring to? An Article of the Constitution? A specific Federalist Paper? Something else?

[@sonicspeedx13]

This can be seen clear as day with the Roe v Wade overturn and the other rulings that have come out since then, for years upon years there were plenty of chances to get this signed into proper law, but because the supreme court ruled on this they let it slide despite them knowing this could happen at any moment, hence why you had one of Obama's things he was running on was properly putting Roe into law...which never manifested, because its clear they don't want to, either from fear, or just the fact they can use it as another tool to push voters to vote how the core party leaders want without ever giving the people what is promised.

[@dmk_games]

The Supreme Court Paradox: "The President must be essentially immune to criminal and civil law to be able to effectively do their job" But also, "The federal government's regulatory bodies must spend all their time in court having judges tell them what to do. The judges can then receive gratuities"

[@user-th1pv6ks5o]

​@@bwofficial1776If you think it makes sense, then I think Saudi Arabia would be a more apt place for you to live.

[@DS2CV]

@@user-th1pv6ks5o if you think that characterization of the SCOTUS decisions makes sense, then a padded cell might be a more apt place for you to live

[@ARabidPie]

It's not really a paradox. With the 'official acts' ruling they essentially accidentally reinstated chevron deference, but even more strongly. The agencies work at the direction of the president, so if the president says 'enforce this law more/less strictly, then that's perfectly kosher based on the official-acts rule. And since the official-acts case came after the no-chevron-deference case then that's the new precedent and chevron deference is back and stronger than ever. The conservatives justices basically just shot their own policy win in the back while aiming for another one like they're Dick Chaney.

[@WTFpeoplebruh]

That's by design. Give Donny the immunity he wants, but then seize power on behalf of the Courts. To SCOTUS, that's a good trade off.

[@corywhitebread6519]

​@@ARabidPiein a senss they really did. However, the problem here is that only the president is immune not those that work for the agencies. It would still make all those who carried out any of those "official acts" liable for illegal activities. So, yeah the president could use his newfound "immunity", but there would be little weight behind the enforcement of the regulations.

[@aortaheart1910]

While the thought of a "crushing weight of cases" landing on the desks of SCOTUS seems like a tiny silver lining, keep in mind that what's likely going to happen in reality is that the court will only rule on cases the majority find convenient and useful to, while ignoring all the rest of the responsibility that it has so eagerly seized.

[@ahadmrauf]

Congress: passes fewer laws than ever due to people quibbling over the details Supreme Courts: why not ask Congress to pass laws that try to address every possible ambiguity for decades to come?

[@CapedBojji]

Just because congress doesnt pass laws doesnt mean the executive is allowed to bypass them. What you are basically arguing is why dOnT wE bYpaSs the fOunDinG lAw oF thE country. If the senate cant agree then that means the law doesnt represnet the will of the country. Its so funny when i here people who talk about they support democracy whining about it working as intented. Democracy is only democracy when laws you like pass with no challenge

[@The2012Aceman]

Isn't that their job? Like, literally their job is to create laws. And you're here going "but that sounds so hard! Why do the laws have to be so SPECIFIC? Why does the poor Congressperson have to litigate every little detail? Shouldn't that be for the poors to figure out?"

[@zerieth6620]

​@@The2012Aceman And chevron allowed them to do that. Congress could tell the executive they wanted a certain thing done, and the executives job was to handle all the minute details. Now congress either has to cover every last tiny little thing down to the fine print leaving absolutely nothing to interpretation or risk letting the courts do it for them. And the justice system is flawed in that takes ages to decide anything, and if there is money involved those cases will always at least wind up on the scotus doorstep making every stop on the way nothing more than pageantry.

[@seandobbins2231]

​@@The2012Acemanthe problem with your statement is your interpretation of what's being said is "it's too much hard work for the congressperson" when that's not the problem. The problem is two things. First, Congress aren't subject matter experts in everything, it's quite literally impossible. This expertise is necessary to make effective regulations. Second, because of the fact that they lack expertise in many necessary areas requiring regulation the ability to even reach a consensus, effective or not, becomes infeasible. You can say, "well, they can just get expert opinions" and sure, they can, but not only do they not have to, the experts still won't be writing the law anyway so even their opinion may be misinterpreted, either unintentionally or intentionally. There's a reason why we deferred to the experts for so long... Because they know what they're talking about. I mean, just consider the fact that despite so much scientific consensus on climate change many politicians still want to misrepresent, if not ignore it.

[@seandobbins2231]

​@@CapedBojjisure, but Chevron Deference wasn't the executive bypassing the law. What it was doing was using the law intentionally written to be just malleable enough so that it could be made workable based on the expertise of those who have it. There is no such thing as a perfect law. Highly specific and rigid law doesn't function well, as it can't reasonably account for anything not originally thought of, which increases when those making said law don't have relevant expertise, something that happens more often than not. This is why laws are drafted with the minimum specificity required for it to function, leaving the exact details to those who have the expertise to determine them that Congress does not and reasonably can't have as a whole. I mean, maybe if Congress was made up entirely of academics, there may be merit to such a high demand on Congress to legislate and expect them to be experienced enough in the relevant fields to do so effectively, but that's not how our legislature is chosen, or any of our high government reps in general.

[@chrisbeer5685]

"Who are you?" "The 2024 Supreme Court decision that pretty much destroys government" "Do you have any idea how little that narrows it down?"

[@margaretwordnerd5210]

Hahaha, and *ouch*. You could be a writer for Colbert.

[@KBRoller]

"I come from the future." "Really?" "Haha, no, don't be silly; humans are all dead in the future."

[@afluffypinecone3577]

The government did just fine before the Chevron case in the 70's. In fact, society is better by almost every metric the less involved a government is in the day to day lives of its citizens.

[@KBRoller]

@@afluffypinecone3577 I mean... if you really believe that, you have *not* studied much history. Anarchism always falls apart because governments are necessary (which, in turn, is because you can't let everyone do whatever they want and just trust that we'll all "be excellent to each other". We won't. We're greedy and selfish and dumb, and will hurt others for our own benefit if we're allowed).

[@TheShadowstepGuy]

Okay Blight. Lol

[@Kjleed13]

So I guess we should expect more oil spills, poisoned water, crashing trains, and rat poop.

[@XenomorphsWrath]

it will be more chaotic than that. I am firmly believing that most judges will attempt their best to make this work, but the fact that they aren't experts in the matters they will be ruling over and the fact that any expert or study they might wish to hear / see can be brought forward by interest groups will cause issues. This will be a case of extremly slow methodical work, or incompetance causing "oopsies" sprinkled with a few noteworthy cases of blatant abuse.

[@jhemp]

​@@XenomorphsWrathnevermind the fact they'll probably get their info from Wikipedia and have blatantly untrue information used to fill the gaps in their knowledge especially if nefarious groups know when and where they'll look.

[@ruekurei88]

I expect Texas and Florida will likely go ham with these breakthroughs. I feel the sorry for the working people in those states. Rich people and companies are gonna be richer though, so start investing. Swings and roundabouts.

[@giglioflex]

crashing trains? Try exploding crashing trains because most railroad companies already under-staff and add way way too many carts for trains carry volatile materials that ignite when exposed to air. Most experts already expect that a catastrophe is only a matter of time and surely this change will not help.

[@wyskass861]

@@XenomorphsWrath It'll allow more appeals to scotus, which is what they wanted. Another step to give themselves more power, but wrapped in propaganda friendly language of "dismantling the deep state"

[@xnamkcor]

"Do you think the legal decision to not burn kittens was correct?". "Well, I don't want to tell people I disagree with not burning kittens...".

[@davechongle]

i love the image of gorsuch just looking around at the other judges, saying "were just so humble" with a tear in his eye as he pats his own back for giving him and his friends more and more power. this is just wild..

[@exeggcutertimur6091]

It honestly sounds like they gave themselves a ton of extra work.

[@InexplicableInside]

@@exeggcutertimur6091 Only if you assume good faith on their part. They're going to have their donors look over the list of thousands of cases submitted to SCOTUS, so that those donors can tell them which ones are 'worth the time' and either strike down regulations or reinforce fascist interpretations. All other cases will simply be discarded because "we don't have time to deal with this," although that may be more than today's average because if the Republicans get control of Congress again they're going to go "Why thank you, we do agree that there are too few SCOTUS justices" and add 20 agreeable idiots with Nazi tattoos.

[@gorzillaau7761]

@@exeggcutertimur6091 Does it count as extra work when all they have to do is consider which side gave them the nicest car/house/holiday?

[@cargopilotguy305]

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party” Where is the administrative state ever mentioned in our constitution?

[@maximejeanneret5886]

​@@cargopilotguy305i'm not even an american but holy shit dude, the constitution is OVER 200 YEARS OLD how is it supposed to even begin to understand the complexity of the modern world, let alone of the modern american justice system... The U.S. constitution can not be a blueprint for every issue and solution smh, stop being a country run by ages long dead ghosts and start trying to make your country a better place

[@jatsko3113]

Just remember, the people complaining the loudest about how government doesn't work are also the ones doing the most to break it even more, because that is what they really want.

[@addajjalsonofallah6217]

That's the point To reduce the scale and power of the federal government

[@elliominati]

@@addajjalsonofallah6217 seriously, just become the amish 2.0 already

[@rneumeye]

GOP: Look at that dumpster fire! 💁🏻‍♂️🔥 We're the ones who will put it out. 💁🏻‍♂️ (*Should be easy since we set the fires.😈)

[@stevenhskns]

@@addajjalsonofallah6217to strip it back to a police and military while we all fend for ourselves. So that corporations that lobby the government can eat up more of society for money.

[@helpumuch6887]

@@addajjalsonofallah6217the more you gut the power of the government, the more power you put into the hands of unelected rich people and corporations. The government is there so the people have a representative against corporations and their neighbors

[@geordiejones5618]

The "secret of empire" in America is that laws really don't mean anything until a judge rules in their favor, or decides that they aren't valid, thus establishing a precedent that overrules any other determination. ANY judge at ANY time can simply decide that any given law doesn't abide by a given state constitution or the federal Constitution. Now that doesn't mean that this can't be challenged by appeal, but there is WAY too much individual bias and "interpretation" that goes into what should be the laws of the land. If the United States gave any shit about the rule of law, they would mandate that no judge can show partisan favor and be put under yearly scrutiny to determine financial incentives or party affiliation, but that is laughable to imagine being implemented.

[@bigbananabill]

well, of course! how else are they going to get their nice cars and free holidays? sarcasm aside, i am very upset with how absolutely dogshit the vast majority of our candidates are and how the two party system gets bastardized more and more each year. it worked for a little while, when neither side was purely obsessed with getting majority, and instead cared at least a little bit about actually improving the nation. too bad that's been untrue for generations.

[@Jartran72]

Precedent can only be set by an appeal court. But you are mostly correct. Though to get actual case law precedent a ruling needs to be appealed and that appeal then is the precedent. Because otherwise it would be like you said, judges would get to make the laws then. The system is still ridicoulus and very very out dated. But let us not lie to each other, the system was always made to keep wealthy people in power instead of kings inheriting their power. Now since wealth is inherited that is very much stupid too. Many americans know very little about their rights, the governments rights, the purposes of certain laws or decisions.. If america was really a freedom loving country more than half of them would arm themselfs to go and arrest the supreme court judges and overhaul the system entirely. Live long appointments are a crazy decision either way. (Not a native speaker so sorry if I am not very coherent, I feel like I could have made my points a lot better in german.)

[@b4ttlemast0r]

because of jury nullification, juries can also just ignore any laws, no matter if there is a precedent or not. And apparently according to the recent supreme court decision the president can also ignore all laws. Laws really dont mean anything in America

[@TheDeadPirateBob]

I mean the President can always have the military storm the Supreme Court and… create some openings. If you catch my drift.

[@geordiejones5618]

@@TheDeadPirateBob If we get that down bad, the party is truly over. Once the military realizes they can call the shots at any time, we are literally the modern Roman Empire. I have no doubt that the Pentagon since the 50s has simple been waiting for the right opportunity to decide that the three branches aren't doing what they want, and they'll use the governors to get away with it. All you need are Cali, Texas, Florida, New York and maybe Ohio and the rest will fall in line or risk violent takeover.

[@volk551]

So what you're saying is I should start a company that makes bottled water and try to overturn clean water act in Texas. What's in the bottles...96% water, 4% other organic chemicals.

[@kdog2646]

That's a state law. You have no power to do so with this ruling.

[@volk551]

@kdog2646 Title 33 of the United States Code aka the clean water act

[@kdog2646]

@@volk551 sorry, the way you phrased it, I thought you were saying Texas passed a law. Upon looking at it, you can't overturn the act; it was passed by Congress. I need to read the ruling further because legal eagle has been more and more biased recently not showing all sides or good faith arguments, but you can probably protest some of the regulations to reciece a permit. Also, bottled water actually doesn't fall under the clean water act.

[@Visual217]

​@@kdog2646LegalEagle is very clearly a biased lefty that panders to people that don't read these documents or do their own homework.

[@mu6best]

To be fair - lead based paint on our children's toys really did taste better and were cheaper, so without regulations on anything at all produced by corporations who donate to the proper people, I expect to see stuff like that soon enough. Oh, yeah! And I think I heard something about the calming effects of heroin in cough syrup?

[@Arffff03]

LMAOOOO

[@downix]

Amphetamine, not heroin.

[@briannabenson4173]

As long as someone isn’t misrepresenting their product & people know what they’re getting, people should be able to buy whatever the hell they want!

[@downix]

@@briannabenson4173 And do you have the time to spend hours researching every single product you buy? Plus, as companies often times do misrepresent what their products are, you are SOL now.

[@phill6859]

​@@briannabenson4173great. Where do I buy a nuclear warhead?

[@tristonb1105]

I’m honestly really scared for the future of this country

[@babalonkie]

If USA is doing that to Americans... Imagine what it is/will do to none American Countries...

[@Dragonage2ftw]

Vote Biden in 2024.

[@Flukitkaato]

@@Dragonage2ftwlol

[@helpumuch6887]

@@FlukitkaatoBiden isn’t the one arguing presidents need the ability to commit crimes

[@BoolyK]

If Trump wins it's actually over, no exaggeration

[@AntiKira20]

Anytime I try to talk to my family members about politics, I'm always told "You shouldn't believe everything you read." "You don't know enough.". It gets to the point where I'm just exhausted and trying to get the point across and they shame or guilt me for saying anything about politics. Am I just talking to a brick wall at that point?

[@sapphireblue4031]

sounds like you have been for years... don't waste your energy and mental health on discussions with people that don't want to talk. You will probably not change their minds and only feel drained. Do talk to people that want to learn and peers that can discuss with you on topics you're interested in

[@XenomorphsWrath]

there is no point in attempting to talk with people about something they don't want to hear.. generally that would be seen as obnoxious. Either they want to discuss it or they don't, if it is the later leave them be, wouldn't be productive if you tried.

[@TheFinalChapters]

"You shouldn't believe everything you read." "You don't know enough." Sounds like something they should fix about themselves, then.

[@CatabolicWaffle]

You're living in a Kafka novel, or possibly Orwell. These things only change when enough people have felt the pain of it. This is making me rethink my stance on accelerationism...

[@ludwigwinter6795]

Don't ruin your family bonds over politics, it's not worth it. Just accept that they might have different opinions and talk to them about literally anything else.

[@Spoon80085]

Ah, yes. The *SMALL GOVERNMENT PARTY* back at it again!

[@kdog2646]

They just removed power from the government. It seems like you were trying to be sarcastic though?

[@Spoon80085]

@@kdog2646 It allows more centralized control of agencies; instead of them internally managing themselves, it is now a direct external force

[@kdog2646]

@@Spoon80085 that is quite literally not the definition of centralized government. Centralized government is the agencies governing themselves as they are part of the federal government executive branch. By having them need both the judicial and legislative branch it spreads and limits their power being quite literally the very opposite of centralized or strong government.

[@MylesKillis]

@@kdog2646its hilarious to me when liberals strawman the heck out of the small government argument

[@3AnxiousFerretsInATrenchcoat]

​@@kdog2646 but... that's exactly the opposite of what is happening? Large exectibe offices spreading the workload across smaller, more specialized sections, to more fairly judge on matters requiring expert opinions. This decision removes that and centralizes all of that power in the judicial sector, run by wholly unqualified individuals for the task (no matter how great a judge, they physically cannot be an expert on all the issues that will be brought to them)

[@PaleImperator]

For any red-side voter who has some trouble grasping why this is bad, this is the civilian equivalent of taking all strategic and tactical command away from the military brass and having Congress run votes on every maneuver, training technique, and piece of equipment. It's equivalent to, were we to try to build a new warship, Congress would have to pass a law declaring what caliber the missile-defense guns were to be. The law would tell us how many gallons of fuel the ship carries. The law would tell us the pitch of the props. All agreed upon by Congress. And that that would be the one and only legal definition of that type of warship until a new law was passed amending it. New paint vendor? More efficient way to route data cables? Improvements in radar? Pass a law. Every time. It's a lawyer telling the auto mechanic how to fix his brakes. It's possible the lawyer knows enough to do that safely, but I'd bet on the mechanic. Except it's not the lawyer's brakes, it's the brakes on your kid's school bus.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

while this is true, most right wing voters would argue that it's still a good thing as they view the 'experts' that have been used before as not being as qualified as they claim to be, like, that auto mechanic may not be as good as he claims to be, now, this viewpoint largely requires a lazer-focus on certain agencies and how they haven't been up to snuff, but they aren't completely wrong.

[@PaleImperator]

@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 I want to make certain I don't misunderstand you - are you saying that most right wing voters would argue that Congress does a better job making decisions than other governmental agencies?

[@tyrian_baal]

@@PaleImperator ask them their opinion on the ATF experts

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@@PaleImperator I'm just the messenger, and as I said: this opinion largely comes from laser focusing certain agencies (read: the ATF) who have a questionable track record in their eyes due to both the real and perceived failings and general lack of competence found in thouse agencies.

[@PaleImperator]

@@tyrian_baal certainly - I grasp the animus towards certain specific governmental agencies, regardless of if I share it or not. That's why I was trying to put it in the terms I did - because this decision replaces not one, but all individual agencies with the direct will of Congress, all at once, across the board, and I was attempting to make that point. It's the equivalent of having the Board of Directors walk around a machine shop floor and change the settings on the machinery. It's possible - just - that an occasional machinist is so bad at their job that this improves things, but the overall result of this process would be (can we all agree?) terrible. Especially sine the BOD must also set the menu in the canteen, vet the janitorial supplies, design the company's webpage, direct the rewiring of the HR cubicles, supervise the lawn-care crew, redline the quarterly fiscal reporting, and head to court to work out the details of that patent dispute. And that's today's agenda. Delegation to experts exists for a reason.

[@phoenixfire6433]

What’s the difference between a hedgehog and the Supreme Court? The hedgehog has the pricks on the outside.

[@NA-vz9ko]

🦔

[@EmilyKveldulv]

​@@NA-vz9koThis guy gets it

[@aceman0000099]

Ruth Bader Pricksburg

[@rainbomg]

Heyooooo

[@cargopilotguy305]

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party” Where is the administrative state ever mentioned in our constitution?

[@toastedtowelie710]

This is not a reality I want to live in.

[@AJX-2]

unelected bureaucrats can no longer just make up laws whenever they want america has truly fallen

[@Ravuun]

I've been saying we've been on the darkest timeline ever since the DNC shut Bernie out in favor of Hillary

[@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket]

Cry about it more, that'll help.

[@stevenalvarado-doc7334]

walk towards the light.

[@odalicio]

​@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket gonna need you to take it down 10-20%

[@Mccoyj189]

FUN FACT: Chevron Deference was used to protect big corporations from liability for the harm they caused. The Chevron v NRDC case started because the EPA changed the law's definition of "source of air pollution" to favor Chevron and other heavily-polluting companies. So the NRDC filed a federal appeal, claiming that the EPA was illegally re-writing the law. The DC Circuit Court ruled in the NRDC's favor. Then SCOTUS ruled that the EPA were the "experts", and therefore the courts (and the nation) had to simply defer to however they interpreted the law.

[@johntrentmusic]

I love that their justification for not allowing States to take Trump off the ballot was that there would be a flood of cases before the courts challenging candidate's eligibility, yet they have no issue with the deluge of cases about to hit the courts over this decision.

[@Necrotic99]

Yep, hypocrites....

[@Karsting222]

Except those cases have always been in the court. The change is literally now following the Administrative Procedures Act. Witch states in no uncertain terms the courts were supposed to be adjudication this all along. Chevron deference was the courts just rubber stamping the agencies and ignoring the duties they were giving under the APA.

[@kpro8908]

Both those decisions are actually perfectly aligned if framed by the underlying legal issue: abrogation. The Constitution does not abrogate to states on the matter of a presidential candidate’s qualifications. The Constitution also does not permit Congressional abrogation of its legislative authority to the Executive. Both decisions fall under the exact same reasoning.

[@Necrotic99]

@@kpro8908 it's funny how they can't abrogate some things but they can others as needed you know? Like how we have some amendments that are sacrosanct like 2A but then the 14th seems pointless and unenforceable....

[@kpro8908]

@@Necrotic99 The constitutional amendments prevent government action. Abrogation, by definition, requires that the Constitution grant a power. Because the amendments restrict, rather than grant, government power, there is no abrogation issue there. What are you specifically referring to? The enforcement provision of the 14th is the only thing I can think of, and I have no idea what abrogation issue comes up there.

[@DellOsso]

So now the president can do basically anything they want without any fear of reprisal, and the courts can now justify or define anything without needing to take input from experts in any field... Man, Amsterdam is looking real nice right about now.

[@Volcano22207]

@@DS2CV you provide no actual argument

[@kuricodes_]

​@@DS2CVah, of course, we shouldn't listen to the actual practicing lawyer- we should defer to the real expert, some random slack jawed loser in the replies of a youtube comment section

[@kosan181]

@@Volcano22207this channel is awful, they cherry picked all the ways this could go wrong and painted it like the agencies couldn’t do there jobs because of all the bs. The real take away is that some semblance of checks and balances are restored. These agencies can no longer make shit up as they go. Example being the ATF making up all these “laws” that no one in Congress ratified and no judge has purview to tell them no

[@darklelouchg8505]

​​@@kuricodes_Fine, go watch Uncivil Law. A lawyer barred before the Supreme Court and two state courts. Who deep dives Constitutional issues all the time. He disagrees with Legal Eagle and explains why he is wrong on this.

[@dicebar_]

@@darklelouchg8505 An 'unbiased' conservative attorney? A _patent_ attorney? How is he an authority? I watched the first few minutes of his video, because I wanted to give him a shot, but just the intro oozes bad faith...

[@scarscar9278]

Trump: "I personally freed moreSlaves than Moses, Lincoln, and Harriet Tubman combined. A lot of people don't know this, but it's true. Some people even said that I freed TOO manySlaves. I also built a beautiful underground railroad. It was the first railroad built underground. It was tremendous. And I made Mexico pay for it."

[@GlennKurusu]

Sounds like something Trump would say.

[@ThePartisan13]

Did you just make that up or did he actually say that? Because that genuinely sounds like something he would say.

[@michaelklinker935]

This sounds more like a Biden quote lmao

[@KK-fi6ms]

@@GlennKurusu I don't think Trump knows who Harriet Tubman was.

[@wildewilde5775]

That's something Biden would say. 😂

[@Scorponox93]

I was paying attention. But when I pointed it out a bunch of people came over and told me to "pokemon go to the polls"; then another group said to trust in the "checks and balances", then accused me of diluting the meaning of the word 'fascism', before calling me a slur.

[@bluevanga30]

Pokemon go to the polls! Back to 2016. Everything went visibly downhill from there. It was bad before but after that year it was no longer possible to ignore

[@SnakeSalmon8izback]

@@bluevanga30 we should have never shot that gorilla

[@HalfwayJac]

Sounds about right.

[@mabadeer1094]

''Hot Dogs? What is hot dogs? Is there any specification that a sausage cannot be made with rat hair? In fact, I prefer my hot dogs with rat hair. For multiple decades, the agency have made clear that hot dogs shouldn't have rat hair in it. I oppose to that fact that sausages cannot be made with rat hair in it. It is a matter of the courts to decide. The fact that agencies had the power to decide what rat hair is and if it belonged in a sausage is an unworkable law breakdance All that being said, I have a lunch to get to; with mustard''

[@DesmusMMaximus]

This is very true

[@Chrisxantixemox]

Sorry I just became president and I appointed my puppet to head the FDA. His wife owns a hotdog company. Now anything that a hotdog company does that is slightly different than her company is illegal and will be fined heavily. Now that all competition has been artificially removed, I will get many campaign donations from the hotdog monopoly corp. Wow I am a great president! Politics is fun!

[@chetanphoenix]

If congress wanted no rat hair in hot dogs, they should have passed a law requiring no rat hair in hot dogs. Lazy congress gotta do its job. Who cares if a million kids die? /s

[@Bethgael]

Now they're doing the metaphorical equivalent of debating whether a hot dog is a sandwich, first.

[@havcola6983]

This led me down a rabbit hole where I learned that the FDA allows rodent hairs in peanut butter as long as it doesn't exceed 1 hair per 100 grams of peanut butter... ...This tells me that at some point someone really must have argued that their peanut butter should be allowed to have _more_ rat hair in it

[@yiqingtan4079]

As a lawyer, I truly feel this is dystopian. I tell my clients all the time that the legality of something is just one side of the issue. There's the practical, the moral, the financial, the spiritual, and especially in this instance, the scientific aspect of matters. The law isn't everything nor it is meant to be.

[@paulbarclay4114]

given the current dystopian nature of what has gone down over the last 4 years, its hard to imagine how things could get much worse, especially since regulatory capture and the "expert' class is basically working for the corporations they are supposedly in charge of regulating

[@Will-eq7uh]

You’re lying about being a lawyer, much like legal eagle. The nonsense he spouts he is absolutely embarrassing

[@aceven2raa]

Science tells us what is, not what ought to be done. So, I would like to know, what "scientific aspect" is there to explain to your clients, Mr. Lawyer?

[@yoshreimi]

​@@Will-eq7uh Really and why are you here

[@paulbarclay4114]

@@aceven2raa science is essentially a cult in most aspects, were still living in the dark ages just look at the last 4 years. science is what got us there, and is keeping us there.

[@tomryan9827]

What is law school like now? Do they even bother teaching anything, or do they just assume it'll all be obsolete by the time you graduate?

[@VoFALT]

Apparently that's how Legal Eagle managed to get through it.

[@KnakuanaRka]

@@VoFALTWhat do you mean?

[@theguy9208]

​@@KnakuanaRkado you really think they know? it sounded good at the time they wrote it

[@jzay1899]

@@VoFALT your clearly conservative, so shut up

[@DocEnder]

@@jzay1899 please use a valid argument

[@littlestbroccoli]

Ah yes, shareholders and private equity, the entities that have been most helpful to the people of late.

[@BatkoNashBandera774]

don't forget venture capitalists, the other gem in the Supreme Court's crown. Back in the day we used to be able to yell at our TVs, now we just write disparaging YT comments.

[@littlestbroccoli]

@@BatkoNashBandera774 At least we could complain to our neighbor in person, now it feels like you and me and all of this is a void.

[@BatkoNashBandera774]

@@littlestbroccoli oh I still complain to my neighbor and we talk in front of the block. But we are an outlier and not the norm. That void is sponsored by FIAT money.

[@resonance01]

man i feel sorry for our factory and construction workers, going to see a big spike in worker deaths or dismemberments as companies realize OSHA cant enforce regulations, and they can treat the basic worker as a resource that can be replaced if something happens to them like they did in the 19th century.

[@jozefkovac6858]

Better be sorry for all the citizens around factories, our planet gets to be poisoned more and more. Who gets to decide what amount of pollutants, carcinogens,.. are *really* the limit? /s

[@John-du2mq]

There are plenty of laws on the books and Osha still has the ability to have their own policies that uphold said laws. Why do people think the agencies can't do anything anymore?

[@mkjirak]

That mentality led to my grandfather's suicide back in the late 1940s when he was fired by his company after suffering a workplace accident that caused major spinal damage and left him unable to work due to debilitating pain. He hung himself from a tree in a public park in protest.

[@KBRoller]

@@John-du2mq It is a *bit* of a hyperbole, but not as much as you think. With one ruling getting rid of statutory limits and another saying judges -- rather than experts -- are the only say in deciding legal ambiguity in regulations... the combination means anyone can bring any regulation to the courts, say "this bit is unclear", and let politics decide how that law should be interpreted and enforced going forward. Maybe not 100% of the regulation, but enough to get a lot of people hurt.

[@bwofficial1776]

Get a better job if you don't like it. Life has risks.

[@bm1747]

Choosing politics over science is how we as a species die.

[@bghost3636]

Who needs reality when the pearly gates await at the end? This idea was the beginning of the end.

[@gavinjenkins899]

This ruling in no way chooses politics over science. The congresspeople simply need to hire the experts, the same exact scientists they trusted before, to give them a list of chemicals or whatever, and vote yes on it in the law itself. Which is the proper and constitutional way to do it, with the proper checks and balances, elected officials in the loop as should always be the case for legislation, and reduced power to the king's branch.

[@scofah]

Politics is our power. Abdicating politics was how we died. Too many people dropped out and thought it didn't matter. Boy does it matter. Vote Blue.

[@Beam3178]

​@@bghost3636there are no pearly gates bro 😭 we only get one shot at life

[@sixghill1925]

Worshipping science as if it is above human discernment and conditions is a cancer on modern culture. If you think science doesnt have politics internally you're ignorant

[@kevincronk7981]

I have a family member who works for the government, she is the only person with enough knowledge on what she specifically does to do her job, and her supervisor is the only other person anywhere close to being able to do her job. according to the supreme court, that's now their job. can't wait to see a supreme court justice at her desk for a few years to get up to speed on how to do her job, which is apparently theirs now.

[@DefensorMilitas]

Or, the judge can just call in your family member to ask for their input.

[@OneEyeShadow]

They just rule according to who gives them more money.

[@Necrotic99]

They don't care, they just care depending on the situation if the ruling benefits their conservative ideals or not

[@leonmat26]

Ha! You think that is their goal? Their goal here is to go "Hey friend who pays for my yearly vacations. This is ambiguous, what would you like the outcome to be? Where should I draw this line to benefit you?" And BAM. An uneducated, unresearched decision becomes law just to appease their buddies.

[@kpro8908]

This decision does not empower the courts to make those determinations, it empowers Congress.

[@Damini368]

Every day I am more convinced there is no room for understanding between the parties; I am more convinced that civil war is inevitable

[@deondricksteen4606]

"No big government" "no regulations" unless it's ignoring corporations. "The others can deal with that"

[@Ryanrobi]

Do the 50 states not exist? 😂 Everything the Fed government does my state of NY also does we don't need a duplicate of every program the fee government schould be small and only focus on defense, interstate commerce, foreign relations etc We absolutely do not need a federal EPA or Department of Education the states and local governments already do this. And if you're say worried about the environment you really shouldn't be because environmental law does not keep the environment clean what keeps the environment clean is that when people become rich they value a clean environment and stop polluting and if you have property rights based on common law and if you're a big corporation you have no incentive to pollute because you can be sued for a huge amount to remedy it It's cheaper in lower risk to not pollute. There are no poor countries that are clean even though they have environmental laws and there are no rich countries that are dirty. All modern countries have pretty strict environmental laws but in poor countries poor people do not have the resources to be able to even throw out their trash and still buy food so they throw their trash into the river. Most pollution comes from poor people and small business in poor countries.

[@dindindundun8211]

@@Ryanrobi bro what

[@noahcarver4232]

​@@Ryanrobi please research the difference between individual pollution and industrial pollution. Furthermore, consider outsourcing and the folk who make the decision to move polluting industries (and occasionally, literal trash) to other countries. I see your point of view, but I feel that there are some misconceptions. For example, in your view, should states be treated as separate countries, and the constitution abolished? If we continue to remove powers from federal government, then what is its purpose? The EPA, as an oversight agency, informs state EPAs, and when multiple state EPAs find issues with a corporation that operates over multiple states, it is the fed EPA that compiles that data and handles it. (That's right, EPAs barely focus on individual pollution, it's that minimal) I invite you to look up everything I've said and verify it, I'm not an expert (literally, my gf works for njepa, that's how I know this)

[@KMennen]

How about the FDA? There is a forced recall by the FDA of a manufacturer of prosthetic joint implants and cases are now building of those patients who have suffered as a result of the failed implants. The manufacturer did not want to pay the patent fees for the proven type plastic and developed there own plastic material in house. The manufacturer conducted their own funded studies for the safety of their plastic material. Well, the new material did not work. The plastic material did not age well on the shelf or in the body. Now will the FDA be able to regulate, and recall defective medical devices. Personally under this SCOTUS decision, I would only have a joint implant as a last resort and i would go to France ( the french have led the way in joint implant safety).

[@IanBLacy]

Depends on the laws around the FDA. This ruling doesn’t say “agencies can’t make decisions” or “agencies can’t enforce anything” The ruling says that agencies, part of the executive branch, do not have the power to unilaterally interpret the law, a responsibility that the constitution gives to the judicial branch I agree that the executive branch has been hindered by statutory gaps, but that’s the legislative branch’s fault. The solution is an amendment, better statute, or a better legislative branch. NOT bypassing the constitution, which undermines the constitution as a whole

[@John-du2mq]

They still have the power to carry out recalls if the manufacturer broke the law.

[@mkjirak]

@@John-du2mq But if the law is ambiguous, do they really?

[@theintrovertedbrotherandsi6254]

​@@IanBLacy 1) If the legislature made poorly drafted laws in the first place, why do you think their amendments to the legislation would be any better. 2) As pointed out in the video, Congress no longer passes meaningful legislation. Are we supposed to just wait around while 535 congress people, less than 1% of whom are educated in sciences, discuss whether a polymer they've never heard of is organic or not? Even if they came to some agreement, that one issue would take weeks, and there are thousands of ambiguous questions like that every year. This is not how a functional society works.

[@kingace6186]

@@IanBLacy That is not what this ruling says, Ian. You obviously need to rewatch the video🤡

[@Lurdiak]

What's the point of a "strong judicial taboo" if only one side cares about it?

[@havcola6983]

Well, obviously the point is that it makes one side hamper themselves without any effort of the other

[@mannotwiththeplan]

@@havcola6983 What's that saying about advantages of being weighted down by morals vs no morals?

[@Klarinet2011]

In the 1970s, one Justice literally said that there was “traditional deference” offered to administrative determinations; pre-Chevron case law supported the idea was especially true instances of mixed policy and fact. It’s not the overruling of 40 years of deference - it’s a lot longer than that.

[@GeneralLizations]

It's like as if these people burned Farenheit 451 to allow arsonists to be firemen and read 1984 as a "best practices" manual.

[@andrewharrison8436]

Oooo - good calls, there are a few other dystopias that are also moving into the future history category. Sad times.

[@tawshisms]

underrated comment 🙌🏾

[@wellscampbell9858]

Let's not forget Animal Farm. "All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others"

[@zrc1514]

And then they looked at Silent Spring and went "Yeah, I like the quiet."

[@havcola6983]

At least they could have thrown Brave New World in there, I could go for some Soma right about now.

[@manuscripts_wav]

It's funny how I subscribed to this channel because of 'Legal analysis of Legally Blonde', and now I'm trying to understand what a Chevron deference is. And I'm not even American 😂

[@Karsting222]

Look somewhere else. Legal eagle has a problem of interesting the facts to fit the law. Instead of interning the law and applying them to the fact. I suggest uncivilized law. He's pretty good at explaining the law even when he disagrees with it. And did much better on this specific case too.

[@MsHumanOfTheDecade]

@@Karsting222 uncivilized law barely has an understanding of the english language, let alone law. most of his takes are provably incorrect, even his most recent one on the other important supreme court decision.

[@Fireballun]

@@Karsting222 ​ @tanszism so which is it? tanszism says that uncivil law guy is just wrong. Karsting says that Legal Eagle has wrong interpreting method (didn't say Legal Eagle was wrong). On the other hand, the OP as a non-American probably would rather watch just the more entertaining one.

[@theshire9173]

Whoever this Uncivilized Law is, they need a rebrand. I tried searching them and got a bunch of Law and Order recommended. “Uncivilized Law” is just too vague

[@ashleyvanbeek7045]

same here. I first found this channel through the video on how long Willie Wonka is going to jail. Now i'm learning about the american courts overturning something i thought was standard practice everywhere.

[@DoctyrEvil]

If only there were other functional branches of government to propose and pass laws to shore up the administrative state. I wonder what that would be like!

[@RFDN0]

Unfortunately, Congress is not functioning. We have not had a budget for years.

[@garret6464]

So stupid. The people whining the most about the Supreme Court and the same people wanting them to have more power, just their favored form of power. ITS NOT THEIR JOB TO PASS LAWS.

[@AlbatrossCommando]

@@garret6464 You're right its their job to interpret the laws passed by congress, it isn't the job of the executive as it was under the chevron precedence.

[@crenfick7750]

Filibuster. Not possible.

[@WatThaDeuce]

Congress has been trying to give away all of their responsibility for decades. Judicial or executive, they don't care who takes it.

[@jimbaxter8488]

Holding government agency bureaucrats accountable is a very good thing.

[@lokiskywalker]

Who ever would have guessed that an entire branch of the federal government serving unelected lifetime terms and is essentially accountable to no one would backfire?!

[@Lewtable]

Non-US person here but I thought the point of the Supreme Court and lifetime terms was to ensure that they could govern apolitically? It seems like that hasn't been the case for a long time now. Would people consider it more of a problem because Presidents have the power to stack the court with temp judges that are more sympathetic to their political leaning rather than the Court system itself being flawed?

[@rclipse1985]

@@Lewtable That was the aim; when you put someone on the court, they are there until death or resignation, so they don't have to worry about their job prospects after, or their career after; there IS nothing bigger than that court. But the president decides who gets on the court, and we let a fascist appoint 3 new judges to it. Lo and behold, the court majority is fascist now.

[@paulbarclay4114]

@@rclipse1985 i think you dont know what the term "fascist" means but ironically what you said is true for the entire government, not just the courts, and is the cause of the regulatory capture and corruption that is currently rotting the USA from within

[@inefffable]

​@@Lewtablethat's the excuse they give but it's clearly not true.

[@paulbarclay4114]

@NovicePCBuilder the "experts" are working for the same corporations they are supposedly regulating the US is the most corrupt country in the history of the world

[@jakebeal8095]

Current Supreme Court: “If it ain’t broke, I have a chainsaw”

[@clickbaitab5741]

It was broken. Government overreach is getting to the point where we cannot be free as Americans

[@stevenpham9117]

It has been broke. The whole point of checks and balances is to distribute power. Rather than congress either purposefully avoiding their job or accidentally making a law ambiguous, executive branch is now limited to enforcing just what congress says. Ambiguity is left to the judicial branch, the literal branch where it’s only job is to interpret the laws. It was broken when one branch could essentially make new laws through interpretation and enforce it. All 3 powers into one branch.

[@lilowhitney8614]

​@@stevenpham9117 So the best solutions is to get lawyers to make decisions on matters of science rather than experts????

[@stevenpham9117]

@@lilowhitney8614 if you want experts, have congress make a division for the experts. I prefer experts created by the will of the people rather than appointed and forced down people’s throats.

[@matthewthomson6466]

How does it always come back to Raegan? How?!

[@raeoverhere923]

Fun fact! If you, for some reason, wanted to make Reagan merch, you have to use his presidential portrait _only_, or his estate will send you a cease and desist with the threat of lawsuit.

[@cl0wnr732]

he's the neoliberal devil

[@matthewthomson6466]

@@raeoverhere923 holy shit I have to try that now, how can I make sure they see it 😂

[@raeoverhere923]

@@matthewthomson6466 You could probably just use the full "Ronald Reagan" name to get their systems to flag you. xD The company I work for is *small*, and they sent us a letter fast as soon as we had the prototype in hand lmao

[@KBRoller]

I mean, fun fact: a lot of Regan's policies were influenced by the Heritage Foundation... who are currently also in charge of Project 2025. It makes me wonder how much of this comes back to Raegan, and how much of it comes back to the Heritage Foundation.

[@nottalackey3587]

I worked for the federal government with two agencies and five locations. The best ruling would have been a presumption that the government is wrong. You can't have good policy where the top people are politically, not scientifically oriented, and you can't fire the rest of them.

[@ThatRedhedd]

Makes total sense!

[@HealingSwordsman]

They do know the answer.. whoever pays them most. What a joke of a court..

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

Money is everything. If you ain't rich, then you ain't sheet.

[@tracyrreed]

As a professional pilot, I'm glad that the FAA can't force me to follow all of those troublesome safety and training regulations! I look forward to seeing you and your family onboard next time you travel for business or vacation! :D

[@RaveYoda]

🤣🤣🤣 Only if we're flying Boeing

[@DS2CV]

ummm, you realize that isn't accurate - right? you're just joking? this doesn't affect the FAA'a ability to enforce regulations. It creates oversight for agencies when they effectively engage in writing new regulations so that there's some accountability to the public.

[@RaveYoda]

@@DS2CV "...this doesn't affect the FAA'a ability to enforce regulations...." Actually, incorrect. Any company who finds any given law undesirable (and has deep pockets) will just concoct some ambiguity claim thus keeping any enforcement of law in limbo. So. This very much affects the FAA. Any regulation can just be claimed as not part of the law made that the FAA bases its rules on. "...some accountability to the public" Not even that. Accountability to a judge. Whom now can be retroactively bribed legally per SC recent rulings.

[@gunzakimbo]

@@DS2CV Accountability to the public? You live in the USA!? That stuff doesn't exist here, you're only accountable when you're poor and owe money..........................

[@BryanLu0]

​@@DS2CVAny change has to go through Congress. The FAA can't make any changes in regulation without Congress. Because the law doesn't spell out exactly what the FAA can do, it relies on Chevron deference.

[@SlapstickStooge]

SCOTUS playing "f**k around and find out" a lot recently.

[@doomsdayrabbit4398]

Remember, we're all the militia.

[@dylan9013]

No, they're just playing f**c around because they'll never actually have to find out.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

@@doomsdayrabbit4398 The upper class gun weirdos never thought that through

[@joezhangmd]

Sad as it is to say, you aren't wrong. Feels like a speed run of the Idiocracy movie timeline. Soon we just need a nerd scientist to be president with unlimited powers to fix all our problems.

[@Necrotic99]

​@@doomsdayrabbit4398they own more guns...

[@clasherking4528]

I was watching the paw patrol movie with my niece and there was a quote that really hit me hard The new mayor of a city had constructed a rollercoaster out of the cities subway system and members of the press asked if this was the dumbest idea ever thought of..... The mayors response: "Im an unqualified elected official, what could go wrong?" Every time I see something the American government is doing now I just remember that quote and facepalm.

[@joemalo5335]

This is the end goal of decades of "My ignorance is just as valid as your knowledge."

[@DS2CV]

i assume you mean this youtube channel

[@UnashamedCaliforniagirl]

​@@DS2CVyou assume too much

[@EmilyKveldulv]

🛐✝️ Ignorance

[@darklelouchg8505]

​@@DS2CVGiven how Uncivil Law mauled Legal Eagles views on this legally, I would say Legal Eagle doesn't have much understanding of this topic and/or loves the administrative state.

[@horttanainen2466]

​@@darklelouchg8505 An yeehaw cowboy with a pseudoacademical law presence "with an edge" as they say themselves questioning Legal Eagle? Oh no, what will we ever do.

[@JoeyYoungg]

Damn, Supreme Court is on a roll lately… right off the edge of a cliff

[@handlemonium]

Roll? I first read "on a LoL" 🥴

[@swans184]

When do we start collectively agreeing to ignore them?

[@JoeyYoungg]

@@swans184 not up to me, I live in Europe… always kinda interesting to me though, that a country with such a fascination on checks and balances has an institution that seemingly doesn’t answer to anyone or anything, nothing to check or balance its power, or am I wrong?

[@swans184]

@@JoeyYoungg pretty much correct. The hope was that since they are appointed for life, they would be as apolitical as possible, unswayed by the current administration. But for some dumb reason they are appointed by the president, when something with that much of a lasting consequence should really be up to a popular vote

[@JoeyYoungg]

@@swans184 to me, the whole “appointed for life” seems really stupid, it means that once someone is appointed, they can do whatever they want: be as corrupt or ridiculous as you like, not like anyone can stop you (legally or politically anyway). Have you been on the Supreme Court for 50 years and are you going senile? Who cares, go ahead and make whatever decision you like, you’re probably a lot easier to influence now too.

[@JasonBoyce]

Chevron deference was a 9-0 UNANIMOUS decision. It shouldn’t be possible to overturn those decisions with a simple, partisan majority.

[@InfiniteAnvil]

Technically it was a 6-0 unanimous decision, because 3 justices had recused themselves. You know, back when judges would sometimes recuse themselves.

[@huk2617]

​@InfiniteAnvil ...recuse? what's that? 😂

[@Nikola_M]

@@huk2617 Apparently it's not participating in a decision in a certain way. Look up a definition to get a better answer than i can sum up here

[@Governor-General.of.Qanada]

Considering scotus gave itself the power of judicial review in marbury, perhaps it could give itself the power of supermajority in overturning precedent...until that is overturned 😂

[@Necrotic99]

​@@Nikola_Mhe was being sarcastic. As in none of those conservative justices EVER recuse themselves and since no one can force them....

[@kyolus]

As an Australian coming from a jurisdiction where we have never had a doctrine of deference and where judges routinely engage the opinions of experts to answer complex scientific questions, I'm a bit confused by this. Will these judges not hear the testimony of expert witnesses to decide these questions? Will they not be subject to appeal if they unduly give less weight to the expert's opinion? Perhaps fundamentally the issue is not that the judiciary is now solely tasked with interpreting the law, as is the case in Australia and the United Kingdom, but that it appears to me that the judiciary in the United States is so fundamentally broken by partisans interests (both Republican AND Democrat) that it cannot function as a just arbiter of law.

[@Kitkat-986]

Legal Eagle is not giving legal advice here, he's giving his politically charged opinions on US law that are anything but politically neutral. Cheveron Deference was a mistake, it gave nearly unlimited power to federal agencies to do anything they wanted as long as they could come up with an excuse as to why they should be able to regulate something.

[@ps.2]

Of course judges listen to expert witnesses. Also, there's a healthy tradition of _amicus curiae_ ("friend of the court") briefs, which are essays written by people who aren't involved in the case at hand. Anyone can write and file an _amicus_ brief (or engage a lawyer to do so), to give the judges whatever information you think they need to decide the case correctly.

[@ConLustig]

Since these judges are essentially saying that they have the ability to make any decision regarding anything that may require professional and expert knowledge I think they should have to live without any expert help. They can do there own electrical, plumbing, dentistry, auto repair, haircuts, medical treatments, etc

[@cargopilotguy305]

@@ConLustig you’ve never read article 3 of the constitution in your life, have you?

[@cargopilotguy305]

@@ConLustig “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party” Notice how it never says “the executive branch gets to interpret the law”

[@Keithustus]

*their own electrical... They can't do any of that work, but law degrees do let us spell correctly!

[@cggc9510]

Spelling aside, this person kind of has a point. Laws currently regulate how people are licensed. The agencies that back up those licenses have done so because of Chevron Deference. So, now the agencies that are making licenses because they think some experts should be licensed can have that aspect of their agency challenged. This means we could end up with a bunch of unlicensed workers in this country installing electrical wires or plumbing ines. Some housing building codes are also up for reinterpretation. So, yep, kind of agreeing with this one.

[@itsaUSBline]

Well, they have the ability to do that where congress hasn't explicitly written it into the law with clarity. Which means administrators will have to work a lot harder to be overly clear and leave absolutely no ambiguity, which just slows everything down.

[@luke9509]

RIP to your democracy Americans, you almost made it to 250. Good effort.

[@Definitely_Not_Spork]

Remember us.

[@dragonlover7196]

help

[@abbottshaull9831]

Remember that it is Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy.

[@mallninja9805]

@@abbottshaull9831 Can you articulate your opinion on why being a loose-knit group of 50 ideologically-opposed bad-tempered neighbors is better than having a single central government?

[@abbottshaull9831]

@@mallninja9805 The single Central Government was established to make sure Laws enacted by individual States don't violate the Constitution or violate their basic Rights. Nor try to apply their laws upon other States who have their own Rights to make Laws as it see fit pertaining to the subject matter.

[@chrisray1567]

Remember when conservatives were against “activist judges”? Now they want judges to decide the nuances of administrative law.

[@DS2CV]

That sounds like a real criticism but it's really just revealing that you don't understand what you're talking about when you use the term "judicial activism."

[@neeneko]

Conservatives are not for or against actions, but people. It was never about judges being 'activist', but who should be allowed to and who should know their place. 'activist' is just their new word for 'communist' or whatever code word they are using.

[@NeoCreo1]

@@DS2CV Except it does? Conservatives used to cry and scream about “liberal activist judges legislating from the bench”. Now we have conservative judges that are “flagrantly” engaging in that exact behavior. Once again proving that every GOP accusation is actual an admission of what they want to do/are doing. It’s just pure projection.

[@briannabenson4173]

You want unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch rewriting laws?

[@briannabenson4173]

@@NeoCreo1How is saying that unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch can’t rewrite laws, legislating from the bench? It seems like all the Supreme Court just did was protect the separation of powers by putting the ability to make law back in the hands of congress🤨

[@Michalosnup]

Man the supreme court has been killing it lately (it being a democracy)

[@kdog2646]

@@Michalosnup I don't think you know what democracy is.

[@Michalosnup]

@@kdog2646 in this context "democracy" includes rule of law, division of power and other principles of democratic states. I agree that right to vote hasn't been affected yet. Not that it has to be, the US system kinda sucks on its own.

[@foppishdilletaunt9911]

“Precedent, schmecedent. We have Opinions !”

[@AlecsNeo]

Pretty much . Wait for the rulling "The expert says H2O is water , but i feel that statement is untrue"

[@Rattys]

@markmierzejewski9534 Yet here we are, still a nation.

[@Shyguy5104]

​@@Rattyslast I checked trump isn't the president right now

[@dgraceful]

So you support Plessy...or Scott?

[@OlEgSaS32]

@@AlecsNeo One step away from corporate execs pissing in a plastic bottle, handing it to you and then with a straight face going "..what?!?! Its clean, filtered water that's totally safe to drink...why are you staring at me with such disgust?? even the supreme court says I'm right!"

[@pedrostormrage]

15:36 "At which point conservatives got a whole lot less concerned about stare decisis" That's one of the biggest ironies I've ever seen: if you're not following stare decisis ("standing by things decided"), then you're going against the status quo (you're not "conserving" anything).

[@LeScratch89]

It's not about preserving the current status quo. It's about returning to that of 1800.

[@AaronLitz]

The Republican Party isn't actually conservative, and hasn't been for decades. It is regressive and reactionary, but not conservative. They are _performative_ conservatives, pretending when convenient,, but the actual makeup of the party is just the worst soulless, hypocritical cheats and unflinching liars. As far back as Nixon is was the party of lies and cheats who would do anything they could for power, as was demonstrated and proven before the country, and then they allied themselves with religious extremists because the party knew they could be easily manipulated by just mouthing the right words, regardless of their actual actions. And after Nixon came Reagan and things have been downhill every year since.

[@beauhenry105]

They don’t want 1950’s America they want 1760’s America. The republicans will be cheering the national guard on as they are packed like sardines into semi’s and hauled to labor camps without discrimination or prejudice. Because this new order isn’t for the people, it’s for the wealthy elite and no one else. This is the aristocracy trying to return and we cannot let them.

[@pedrostormrage]

@@LeScratch89 If you can just cherry pick whatever specific point in time you want to go back to (no matter how far back it is), then "conservatism" just feels like an innacurate word (the past isn't uniform). If you're opposing the current/most recent status quo, then "regressivism" sounds more accurate (that includes any point in the past).

[@pedrostormrage]

@@AaronLitz I was thinking about the word "regressivism" as well, since that one does apply to any point in the past. It just feel frustrating and confusing to see words either lose meaning, or being used outside of their actual meaning.

[@unvergebeneid]

And this barrage of historically bad SCOTUS decisions is hiding the fact that there were also normally bad decisions at the same time like when they made it possible to outlaw homelessness.

[@rosswalenciak3739]

Yeah, SCOTUS has been bad for nearly the entirety of the US's existence.

[@Kylora2112]

Not outlaw homelessness, criminalize it.

[@glumreaper8885]

Pedantically, it is much worse than outlawing homelessness. They can criminalized any "encampment" on public lands -- which has historically been a major way of assembling and protesting. It's one of the most egregious erosions of the first amendment that has ever happened. Also for what it's worth, the immorality of making it a criminal violation to not simply possess the means of abode, which would force people into the working class without the social protections of that work. There is a definition for that type of experience, it's feudalism.

[@Sam-Cain]

​@@Kylora2112Outlawing means it is outside the law, i.e criminal. Both are correct.

[@DS2CV]

''outlaw homelessness'' - well, if you believe propagandists, you're likely to end up unhappy with this court. if you're interested in living in the real world instead of make believe, they're pretty terrific.

[@reuvencooper8170]

You know I used to think that there was a whole legal system and tons of judges and lawyers and a supreme court and congress that made laws. But after watching a few of ypur videos I have come to realize that really thatere is only Legal Eagle. He is the supreme law of the land and can never be wrong. No matter if every judge in the county would rule against him he could make a KZbin video and that would conclusively prove that he is correct. My favorite type of legal analysis is the one where we examine the law to say that every other interpretation is incorrect and we know best. Keep doing what you are doing Legal Eagle, I don't know what we would do without you. No one else in the entire country in capable of reading laws. All hail supreme all mighty judge Legal Eagle!

[@michaelboone5113]

This makes me sick. The whole legal community has been watching this car crash happen in slow motion. Everybody who paid attention knew this was coming. Sick.

[@DS2CV]

This makes me extremely happy. If you're sick, then there's something wrong with you, not this change to the law. Heal thyself.

[@michaelboone5113]

@@DS2CV you must not be in law. You’re weird for being happy at my (and millions more) chagrin. Pity.

[@mynameisben123]

@@michaelboone5113 I don’t think they are happy at your chagrin. They are happy with the outcome. I’m also happy with the outcome. Laws should be clean and unambiguous, and easily interpreted by a layperson.

[@samc9133]

​@@mynameisben123Yeah that's not the outcome we're gonna get here.

[@BryanLu0]

​@@mynameisben123Actually, what this does, is that government agencies cannot enforce any regulations. E.g. FDA, FAA, CDC etc. They have to appeal to Congress to make any changes.

[@pigs18]

You can't hire clowns and then be surprised when it all turns into a circus.

[@SparkpadArt]

What's a circus without three rings?

[@MiniM69]

Hire? You mean all the bunnies who forgot elections have consequences!?!

[@officialmonarchmusic]

@@MiniM69 Hired the Justices

[@joemann7971]

​@@MiniM69we dont vote on Judges.

[@rigelb9025]

@@joemann7971 'We' don't, but someone sure does.

[@ignitionfrn2223]

2:20 - Chapter 1 - The chevron case 5:50 - Chapter 2 - Chevron in the crosshairs 7:30 - Chapter 3 - Enter the herring 10:35 - Chapter 4 - Loper bright 14:55 - Chapter 5 - In memoriam; stare decisis 19:00 - Chapter 6 - The upshot 21:25 - Back to Devin 23:00 - Conclusion

[@emm8357]

Kagan’s dissent was 🔥But I’m so tired of the most on-point legal reasoning showing up in dissents (Fischer, Trump etc)

[@Rainears129]

I remember having to write scientific papers in high school and college, and deference was always given to experts in their fields (so a study from the EPA was more trusted than a small study from a small town who doesn't work in science at all). Nice to see that once again, my high school papers had more scrutiny put into them than the rulings that will decide how laws are enacted in this country.

[@TheDarkfalldc]

So as a lawyer; what is the play to push back against this kind of tyranny? Do we just sit and take it? Are we able to file a lawsuit or anything similar to at least voice our displeasure? How long until 'ignore the Supreme Court entirely' is the only move we have going forward?

[@magicmarcell]

You could try protesting at home and send strongly worded letters. Nobody in the government is going to read them but youll at least have good blog content

[@elevenm.a.1125]

Yesterday.

[@JoeOvercoat]

As long as the American Bar Association sits on its hands, nothing will change.

[@wellscampbell9858]

Vote against the party that put these bozos on the bench.

[@wellscampbell9858]

@@magicmarcell In all seriousness, writing representatives does have an effect. They don't read them but they do keep track of their constituency. So don't bother with a strongly worded 64 page thesis. One or two clear sentences about how you feel on a particular issue. It will get one tic-mark, same as the thesis.

[@kingace6186]

Honestly, the one ruling that needs to be overturned is Marbury v. Madison. That single court ruling gave the Supreme Court dictatorial powers over the law. It made the Supreme Court the most powerful branch and protected it from checks & balances. Judicial review is important, but the courts shouldn't be able to single handedly rewrite the Constitution and the laws enacted by Congress.

[@chandler224]

Agreed. It's honestly quite comical from an outside perspective like "What do you mean 9 unelected people can basically rewrite your Constitution without legislative or electoral approval? What are you, a dictatorship?"

[@luvhair255]

@@chandler224 *sweats in Freedom*

[@RaptieFeathers]

... That's the judgement that keeps Congress from passing laws that override the Constitution. It also is what lead to _McCulloch v. Maryland,_ which is what establishes and makes explicit that the federal government is supreme over the states, and restricts how much states can interfere with the federal government. The Supreme Court _is_ subject to checks and balances-it's subject to Congress. Unfortunately, thanks to McConnell, Congress is broken. *_The problem isn't with the Supreme Court, it's with Congress._* The only way we can make things right is to grab more Congressional power. Then we can actually impeach and remove Thomas and Alito.

[@rosspunzo1876]

I believe the issue with this is it would effectively invalidate ALL Supreme Court rulings as they were all made with the belief they have judicial review as stated within Marybury vs Madison in mind. In other words, there would be no such thing as settled law period.

[@RaptieFeathers]

To make things very clear: overturning the ruling you suggest would invalidate centuries of rulings and precedents and amendments. It would _literally_ destroy the entire US, shattering it and even possibly erasing entire states. With the US gone in all but name, the result would, without exaggeration, be the end of the world.

[@Dracas42]

Now hold on a minute, lemme make sure I got this right: The Supreme Court is overturning Chevron because they think the judges should be the ones to interpret the single, best reading of the law. To overturn this decision, they cite that no one ruling is correct, and that we shouldn't be applying the results of one case to another. So, which is it? Should we have a single standardized practice of using the "best law," as the overturning would have us use, or should we never refer to previous cases that had been decided, using this "best law" when we judge future cases?

[@4RILDIGITAL]

The concept and consequences of ending Chevron deference are daunting. The additional workload on federal judges and the potential inconsistencies in decisions will make government functions unpredictable.

[@CptApplestrudl]

Not if you pay the judges.

[@TitaniumTurbine]

In the meantime, agencies ensuring that harmful additives are not added to our food, water, air, etc are stymied by this ruling. Yikes, this is going to be bad. Corporations have nothing to lose in adding cheaper, cancerous ingredients since it will take years before agencies are able to ban specific ‘chemicalized’ substitutes in meals. If anyone was thinking of building your own garden and water supply because store bought goods can’t be trusted - now is the time to do it. The people celebrating this have no idea what this ultimately means because they only think in terms of “my team”/“my team did it”. They’re going to find out soon enough though how bad this really is.

[@sascharambeaud1609]

@@CptApplestrudl Exactly. The new 'gift' system will make the brave new American justice systems very predictable. Albeit in a bad way.

[@Rougarou99]

Don’t forget companies just straight up ignoring regulations under the assumption that judicial overload means they can get away with it for years.

[@NeutralDrow]

Which is what conservatives want. When your whole philosophy is "the government doesn't work (and it gets in my way)," you're going to do everything you can to make it self-fulfilling.

[@MelangeToastCrunch]

In deference to Chevron, they removed Chevron deference. Poetic injustice if ever I’ve seen it

[@cwill2127]

Soooooo when do I wake up and realize it’s still 2019 and I’ve just been in a long coma

[@cxfxcdude]

2015 you mean

[@bodotrenaud7441]

you want to do a redo of the last few years ?

[@Sunflowerp3bbles]

​@@cxfxcdude 2011 you mean

[@Alacernovum]

​@@Sunflowerp3bbles 2008 you mean?

[@Governor-General.of.Qanada]

1942 you mean?

[@maglen69]

The problem is when certain agencies change their mind depending on who is in office and determine if you've committed a felony or not without congress' input. (Looking at you ATF) Some of these agencies are extremely powerful

[@Mrjonnyjonjon123]

This, in my opinion, is 10 times worse than Trump immunity. That has theoretical implications. This is going to affect us almost immediately and at the worst time (Climate Change)

[@3magikarpinamansuit281]

If you think climate change is going to happen sooner than a president using dictatorial powers you might be too focused on climate change, (which is real but mostly caused by our enemies.)

[@aaronhumphrey3514]

It's not "Trump immunity", it's presidents essentially becoming kings. As bad as this ruling is, it's not worse than making presidents kings.

[@DKonigsbach]

True, I guess, but don't underestimate the damage to society that the immunity decision can also cause.

[@WhatWillYouFind]

Its a jab in the gut after a nut punch tbh....... If we get a dictator, we know they will just break shit at this point. It all seems hopeless. Biden needs to step aside and we need the next coming of FDR 2.0, a progressive president thats loved and respected. A president that revitalizes and under the new precedents RESETS the damn system back to one where rights, liberty, and voters are heard as opposed to corporate donors. I won't hold my breathe, but I can dream.

[@RichardLeslieWhereat]

Cant the trump immunity apply to Biden and let him 2A Trump while Biden is in office?

[@maksimbolonkin]

"I don't want to be a Federal Judge". Believe me, with the new ruling that gifts are not bribes you do in fact want to be a federal judge.

[@officialmonarchmusic]

I'd love to see Devon as an actual decent federal judge

[@DS2CV]

re: "you do in fact want to be a federal judge" - son of POTUS sounds like a better deal tbh

[@maksimbolonkin]

@@DS2CV judges are for life, Saudis aren’t going to pay Kushners forever

[@maksimbolonkin]

@@DS2CV judges are for life, potus is not, so Kushners won’t get any more Saudi money

[@AFN2750]

I feel the need to remind the world that the Supreme Court gave itself most of the power it has. We COULD just ignore it. We COULD do a lot of things to fix this.

[@angelique707]

A lot of things like what other than vote?

[@robsquared2]

"The court has made it's decision, now let it enforce it."

[@stopgont7360]

​@@angelique707protests, massive protests

[@universalplayz7496]

The other 2 branches actually gave it power by simply accepting the Madison ruling The moment they did that They simply gave the court the power of judicial review If they didn’t want that power to fall into the supreme courts hand they could’ve more than easily fought it as the court was extremely weak at this time

[@eminentbishop1325]

​@@universalplayz7496true but it looks like precedent is becoming a thing of the past too so maybe we can just go ahead and ignore that ruling now lol

[@marig4674]

This is going from bad to worse. The same people who say the government has too much power also say that the president can have full power. You can tell who is paying for their extravagant lives. How can we stop them? 😢