‘Massive power grab’ by SCOTUS ‘throws out decades of established law’

The Supreme Court on Friday overturned the 40-year-old legal principle known as the Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws they administer. The unprecedented judicial power grab shifts the final say on ambiguous laws from the experts staffing these agencies to federal judges, helping to advance a major goal of Project 2025, the rightwing manifesto for dismantling democratic institutions. The ruling “disrespects both the Congress and the Executive branch - amassing power for the court itself,” says Jody Freeman, an administrative law professor and Director of the Environmental and Energy Law program at Harvard Law School. Justice Correspondent for The Nation Elie Mystal calls it a “massive power grab” leaving “no power for the people to choose for themselves.”
» Subscribe to MSNBC: / msnbc
Download our new MSNBC app for the latest breaking news and daily headlines at a glance: www.msnbc.com/...
Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: www.msnbc.com/...
ReidOut Blog: www.msnbc.com/...
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: www.msnbc.com/
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: link.msnbc.com...
Find MSNBC on Facebook: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: / msnbc
#SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #January6

[@sharpe34]

After having a 3 inch deep, 8 inch wide drainage ditch called a "Navigable Water way" by the DNR, and loosing the use of a field over 50 years old, who in their right mind wants some bureaucrat calling a ditch a river?

[@knickyak7268]

Bet it was a farm that they didn’t want operating ?

[@sharpe34]

@@knickyak7268 Yup, course they did the same thing to the Milwaukee river...think a sewer line over flow and that is what it smells and looks like.

[@diegooland1261]

I do.

[@clintsmith559]

@@diegooland1261Too bad!

[@NatsAstrea]

Under this decision, it will be "some judge", rather than "some bureaucrat" calling the ditch a river. How will that be an improvement?

[@ministryoffortune5981]

Constant exposure to false information on TV can lead to the acceptance of those falsehoods as truths. This can distort one's perception of reality and create a state where the person is not aware of the actual truth.

[@jimmyjames6487]

It's called brainwashing

[@alexdalton7290]

Soo these guys^

[@BhumiPiltz]

That is quite true. One just has to look at Fox News to see the bastardization of the truth in real time.

[@sandyjackson346]

Hear hear

[@kalabangle6450]

It’s fux spews nonstop propaganda!

[@cmonayyy7238]

The hypocrisy with these talking heads is astounding.

[@ShadowfaxIsAHorse]

How is it a serious blow to democracy when they said that it is up to the legislature or judges rather than unelected bureaucrats?

[@wearynottired]

Those judges are appointed. The Bar Association, has already stated that the majority of these judges, are not qualified for their positions. Case in point, Judge Cannon, in Florida.

[@davidmckendry7684]

When it comes to ANYTHING scientific, would you rather have subject matter experts or appointed judges or elected officials. Picture the House everywhere, all at once!

[@hassimirfenring4753]

Those Unelected Bureaucrats are the Experts In Their Fields. They are the subject Mater Experts; The people most qualified to understand the ramifications of regulatory decisions in their area expertise. I do not want political entities making these decisions based on idealogical grounds rather than subject matter experts using scientific methods. Do you?

[@wearynottired]

@@hassimirfenring4753 well stated!

[@jamesmiller3098]

@@hassimirfenring4753 Yes cause your so called experts do not know or care about upholding our rights.

[@syrtycon7299]

The only established law that matters is The Constitution.

[@Bakes-z4c]

Except for the 14th amendment. SC didn’t like that one, so it gets blanked out

[@willmont8258]

@@Bakes-z4c The SC did uphold the 14th. Your side created a phony interpretation of it just for Trump, and the SC ruled 9-0 that your interpretation was wrong.

[@nic12897]

@@Bakes-z4c When did they blank it out?

[@Godgotmealways]

And they are destroying that can yall see it 😢

[@jdpowell72]

@@Bakes-z4c In what imaginary world did that happen?

[@aa-hj2fd]

Congress makes the laws; The Executive branch enforces these laws; the Judiciary makes sure that laws are Constitutional. It sucks that that Congress now has to do a better job at making laws, but that is the system. No more passing the buck.

[@joannebies3879]

Exactly! Well said

[@daleksummers3155]

If your government is corrupt It doesn't matter, they only enforce these laws on who they want and there are too many laws.

[@Worklikeyoushouldbe]

Well said

[@terryconnors7329]

@@aa-hj2fd that is because the democrats are sold out to the communists and cartels. I call the. All commiecrats.

[@VickiTrusselli]

@@reidpinchback8850 exactly

[@mattrondeau7466]

The government should only be accountable to the government? And that is somehow a good thing for the people? How insane are these clowns?

[@RayThackeray]

You need to explain what you mean because that was... meaningless.

[@crissd8283]

Chevron was a horrible ruling and this was a great ruling. The original ruling allowed unelected agencies to regulated with little checks, balances, or democracy. This ruling actually moved power from unelected agencies to elected congress. This news broadcast is completely incorrect. This is a win for democracy.

[@ChristoverMarxfortheWin]

VERY

[@Bakes-z4c]

Government gets elected and oversees outcomes of departments enacting policy they are directed to do. You pick the government. The extreme court is unelected, I have thought for a while if you vote for a guy who uses lawyers to save his 🫏, always, you will end up with the whole country in court, always.

[@mattrondeau7466]

@@Bakes-z4c If you vote for a party that puts uses a corrupt justice system to put their political enemies behind bars, you get the unmitigated disaster that we have now. I'm voting for the witch-hunt victim to get us out this disastrous mess. You can stay on the wrong side of history.

[@foxxygranpa87]

Okay I'll bite. Why is overturning a rule that let 3 letter agencies pick and choose laws to change whenever they want a bad thing?

[@milspec8283]

We live in a constitutional republic that has strict rules on who and how laws are passed, chevron allowed the government use buerocrats in these agency to bypass those constitutional laws and pass laws that favored government that took away American freedoms, and make it harder for us to live, because congress would never pass such rules and many in those agency do not respect our constitution.

[@Impuritan1]

It isn’t.

[@UniqueBreakfastTaco]

id venture to guess that the swamp doesn't want any curbs on their power.

[@LadyLeda2]

Because they are the experts in their field. What would a Supreme Court Justice know about water quality, or how to build a highway so the water doesn't pool on it or how to saw a wedge in a tree so it will fall exactly where you want it to or a million other things. They don't know. These are not bad things.

[@holleybaker5645]

@@LadyLeda2 I see your point. We want the experts to do what they do best. But, this ruling doesn't throw out any conventional or established wisdom, such as how to build a road or manage a water treatment facility. What it does do, however, is require the experts, in any field, to submit to legislative oversight before changing their processes, making their processes public information so we can find out what they are doing. Both sides of the aisle have been crying out about a broken system, this is part of how we fix it. If it seems messy to you, don't forget that even life-saving surgery looks like murder 1/2 way through.

[@HH-vh1ok]

So unelected bureaucrats not being able to twist laws to fit their needs is a bad thing huh?

[@randomaxe662]

so conservative talking points blah blah blah

[@blueberry-ri7eb]

So you want the Supreme Court setting clean water standards or safe food and drug standards ? They cannot even get the Constitution straight.

[@wearynottired]

But, you’re okay with ordinary citizens working the laws that we are abiding by in states right now? They are getting judges and governors to pass legislation. Are you not paying attention?

[@Bakes-z4c]

Thought the extreme court just did that. The 7 headed emperor of the USA

[@davidmiller532]

Oh shut up Congress makes laws and the Executive enforces them; the Executive, of which the DOJ is a part, cannot write its own laws or amend existing ones. Get it?...

[@michaeldvorak5556]

That is exactly what the ATF and others have been doing.

[@angelo_giachetti]

MSNBC, they swore Joe Biden was sharp and at his best. They lie. FJB anyway.

[@cecilelaforce3686]

No. Federal agencies such as EPA, FDA, etc. have technical experts and scientists who create rules for technical agencies. Courts and judges can barely add 2 + 2 and are unfit, unqualified and could never understand these rules to save their lives. Are you with Heritage or ADF?

[@emmittmatthews8636]

​@@cecilelaforce3686All legislative powers belong to Congress.

[@tristenklein5940]

@@cecilelaforce3686you obviously missed Civics 101 in high school! When you have illegitimate agencies creating laws under the deguise of rules that is not a representative republic that is mobocracy!

[@Nate-nf2no]

Most of the logical people in America are tired of the “specialist in government Bureaucracy which are nothing more than lobbyists.”

[@neotheboxer6015]

No, experts are actual experts who are clear on the subject and can actually identify what ar paths that make sense. This is insane...when you start seeing lead in your water again please don't cry and say "I didn't know" or "why is this happening to me?" You are ok with insanity

[@Bakes-z4c]

Lobbyists are paid by people who can afford it… like chevron, 3M, big tobacco, gun manufacturers. Use your logic to figure out where that leads

[@nic12897]

@@neotheboxer6015 It's almost like... Congress can pass a law forbidding lead pipes. Wow amazing, problem solved.

[@donsims1941]

​@@neotheboxer6015 😂 YOU SOUND " vAcCiNaTeD 🤪" 🤦 THE REPEALING OF LAWS IS THE OPPOSITE OF A POWER GRAB. MORE LAWS EQUAL LESS FREEDOM

[@g0tskillzz]

@@donsims1941 Congratulations, this is the most braindead take i've seen on the internet today. YOU sound quite UNvaccinated and lacking of a high school diploma.

[@TheJagjr4450]

K. Jackson Brown sided with the conservatives... explain that!

[@ItsMeMario-nm7rk]

She’s being unbiased

[@fleafarts3576]

Amy Coney Barrett voted against the J6 hearing. Sounds like this is how the court should work.

[@tretre3892]

​@@coffeedad31why do you people go out of your way to attack the black woman?

[@geoffreymartinez7208]

Got many people dumbfounded. I have seen Circuit judges change their position on a ruled issued to come to agree or disagree with the majority. Maybe when she realizes, she'll do that.

[@jeanniestaller797]

​@@tretre3892they are actually commending the black woman.

[@nfortehbruno2993]

The level of constitutional law weaknesses on the panel is disturbing. This is the reason bureaucrats should not legislate nor dilute the interpretation of the law. Experts are always involved in the legislative process, but they don't vote.🎉Bravo Supreme Court

[@pinkybeasts]

😂😂😂. They haven't done a good job. The CDC lied over and over. Now it gives back to people that was meant to.

[@JoelMcEntyre]

You can be held liable for discussing medical opinions if you are not a physician, but you don’t have to have a degree in law to make opinions and discuss them.

[@markfeland2285]

Judges who have no expertise in a particular field have no business overruling the experts, turning these decisions into politics is ridiculous

[@UniqueBreakfastTaco]

@@markfeland2285 "experts" who happen to be paid political operatives and lobbyists.

[@brandonmcheyenehoward1077]

It’s not about the law for these extremists, nor is it about upholding their oath, and that is blindingly clear to anyone looking on. Money and Power. One of the liberal judges pointed out that even they are not above the law. Would love to see the ones she was referring to get impeached

[@jasonwilson3057]

The executive branch usurping legislative power to bypass judicial authority is an affront to the separation of powers clause.

[@wearynottired]

The Evocative Branch operates within its scope of powers. Do you really want to do down this road?

[@TooManyChoices1]

It’s worse than that. It’s Congress abdicating its power to burecrats in order to avoid the repercussions of doing things that are facially unconstitutional, and that they couldn’t pass through Congress. Then looking the other way after colluding with the executive branch to do those unconstitutional things.

[@RayThackeray]

@@TooManyChoices1 You need to give some examples of this assertion because your diatribe makes no sense. In any functioning democracy, agencies (run by "beaurocrats") must interpret what is usually a vaguely written law and develop regulations in the daily minutiae to make the laws work. If an agency ever goes unconstitutional things then that can legitimately be brought to the state or federal Supreme Courts.

[@crissd8283]

​@@wearynottiredYes. I want the president to have less power. The president/executive branch has had far too much power. The purpose of having three branches is for checks and balances. For far too long, that power has been concentrated in the executive branch. Congress has had its power stripped away. It is about time the supreme court balances the power by sending it back to congress.

[@WriterRachel]

Do u think our current US House is capable of writting responsible environmental protections?

[@psunaminami6672]

the weapponization of the government agencies has caused this.

[@Swnsasy]

Are you kidding?? This is HORRIBLE!! This is what Project 2025 WANTS!! You people that think this is a good thing show you literally do not understand what this actually is!! This means ACTUAL EXPERTS are no longer able to weigh in and now it's Judges! We already see what the SCOTUS has been doing.. Now Congress cannot pass laws anymore and it's the SCOTUS!! We want clean water? Nope, SCOTUS tells us.. We want to make sure meat is supposed to be at this temperature, NO EXPERT, NO CONGRESS!! IT'S THE SUPREME COURT.... How TF is that good??

[@donaldbuth1127]

So the concern is that elected representatives have to take a stand on what rules are applied to citizens. Not a power grab by courts but giving power back to people. Too many instances of administrators destroying citizens rights. This is GREAT

[@Confucius_Spirit]

So according to your theory, if a certain pesticide is applied to a specific food, Marjorie Taylor Greene (with a Masters on Chemistry from Trump University) can increase that percentage with a slam of the gavel huh ?!?! Never mind restrictions for a healthy body.. She decides, we eat.. No Science !! Ahhhh ignorance..

[@ArtseyHayton06]

Wait does this also affect think tanks as well?

[@ArtseyHayton06]

@@donaldbuth1127?

[@breathnstop]

You don't understand this issue at all.

[@gustavrodewald3654]

Giving unelected experts the ability to make up and enforce laws sounds fascist. I don't understand why the party that I need to vote for if I want to help save democracy is mad about this.

[@lawrencerollock6637]

Because it is facist the way they treat rfkjr is proof in the puddn

[@celan4288]

Our Constitution clearly lays out that it is the role of the judiciary to interpret legislation. Subject matter experts still have plenty of role in advising and administering according to their expertise. They just can't decree, with no recourse, laws upon the American people. This shouldn't even be controversial.

[@culcune]

The left was counting on circumventing that inconvenient document, the Constitution, for eternity, as evidenced by how triggered the left-leaning news agencies are fuming over and coming up with doomsday titles (see above title from the great news source, MSNBC as but one example).

[@ricardobarahona3939]

So I guess precedent doesn't matter nor the original ruling. Also the constitution is incredibly vague on the power of judicial review, a power the Supreme court gave itself.

[@celan4288]

@@ricardobarahona3939 It's precedent until it's not. There was 200 years of precedent before Chevron.

[@ricardobarahona3939]

@@celan4288 Definitely not 200, the constitution was not ratified (based on 1984 ruling). Not to mention the post new deal complexity of government is nothing compared to a much less complex government for a new country.

[@ricardobarahona3939]

@@celan4288 Also to break precedent you need a very good reason, and the reasoning in this case was terrible.

[@DeborahGrantham-xh6dn]

Good. It’s about time that the agencies aren’t in charge of the country.

[@jeffwoods6555]

Lol😂 non politicized? We have witnessed first hand how politicized those agencies are

[@WhizzingFish12]

Ask Lois Lerner at the IRS, or better yet the conservative-leaning NFPs she and her agents f-ed over.

[@brianfoley3925]

MSNBC...the next best thing to Pravda.

[@BhumiPiltz]

Fox News is more akin to Pravda, fyi.

[@thurayya8905]

tRump is the one with Putin's hand up his nethermost.

[@user-xp7ju2sd6o]

Micro Sucks Nothing But Crap

[@curtisboswell2619]

Yep. Them and the 'Communist News Network' over at CNN. Same song, different singer... Ol' Joe Goebbels would have been proud of them. Disgusting is what they are.

[@curtisboswell2619]

@@BhumiPiltz A lot more accurate in it's reporting than this bunch of circle-jerks. GFY.

[@Isynchromissity]

Well, some of those “experts” often profit either directly or indirectly from the decisions they make. We need better laws and accountability measures that prevent anyone or their immediate families from profiting from any decisions they make before and especially after they serve. This should also apply to every member of congress and Supreme Court justices.

[@Swnsasy]

Are you kidding?? This is HORRIBLE!! This is what Project 2025 WANTS!! You people that think this is a good thing show you literally do not understand what this actually is!! This means ACTUAL EXPERTS are no longer able to weigh in and now it's Judges! We already see what the SCOTUS has been doing.. Now Congress cannot pass laws anymore and it's the SCOTUS!! We want clean water? Nope, SCOTUS tells us.. We want to make sure meat is supposed to be at this temperature, NO EXPERT, NO CONGRESS!! IT'S THE SUPREME COURT.... How TF is that good??

[@ricardobarahona3939]

Not going to happen. There is a reason big business wanted Chevron dead, they know congress is too incompetent to even have stricter effects in stock trading.

[@LadyLeda2]

Have you heard of the 2025 plan for America if Trump gets elected? America will be no more if this happens. Please help pass the word along.

[@Swnsasy]

@@LadyLeda2 Alito and Clarence will retire and he will be adding 2 more!!

[@kappadarwin9476]

Clarence Thomas has taken trips from his donors and even a house paid off for his mom. Judges even went to prison because they benefited from the decisions they made. This happened during the Kids for cash scandal. Judges were getting payments in exchange for sending kids to jail. Judges are not incorruptible.

[@brentevje5939]

We need less laws and people who come up with them

[@Monsterdrumma]

Cool then don’t wear your seat belt!

[@chrisfuller2069]

@@Monsterdrumma How many boosters have they convinced you to take by now?

[@JohnDoe-ez2ex]

​​@@Monsterdrummarelax satan. @chrisfuller2069 And you..... Since you clearly dont believe in science, why dont you give up literally everything you own, move to an island and live like a cave man, since everything you use and own was made possible by science.

[@EvelynHayes97]

@@chrisfuller2069you’ll die by quote on quote freedom

[@chrisfuller2069]

@@EvelynHayes97 It's quote, unquote, you clearly highly educated person. I'm curious what you think "quote on quote" means. 🤣

[@batteredskullsummit9854]

Um this is a great thing? We didn't elect the IRS or the ATF or SS, they shouldn't have any legislative power at all

[@JohnSmith-el6zc]

No one is above the law, including corrupt government agency officials.

[@anarchodin]

You didn't elect federal judges either, so it's a question of which set of unelected bureaucrats are better positioned to decide. In addition, the executive branch doesn't have people with lifetime appointments, so elections _can_ change the policies of those organisations.

[@cl5619]

@@anarchodincongress should make better written laws to remove ambiguity. When edge cases expose unforeseen loopholes in existing laws, congress can amend previous laws. Giving bureaucrats the power of congress is flat-out unconstitutional. It’s the way of the Soviet Union.

[@anarchodin]

@@cl5619 Ambiguity will still be resolved by bureaucrats. It's just that it's a different set of bureaucrats.

[@PerrySummers]

40 years of doing it wrong.

[@k333rl]

who'd have thought govt having less power and control would be a bad thing.

[@AdolfBushka]

Totalitarians

[@johntramburg3278]

Only a left wing hack pretending to be a journalist.

[@virgildavidson4945]

It in effect turns matters back to control of Congress to call balls and strikes. Not the unelected .

[@Swnsasy]

NOOOO!! It takes it away from Congress and to the SCOTUS ONLY!! The courts now say what temperature our meat should be, this town needs clean water, the Supreme Court takes it... Everything now dismisses Congress and Experts at the FDA, EPA, all goes to Supreme Court....

[@Kiki-en9vm]

The congress will make the law but fools who carry out that law---civil serva ts, is not a matter of congress doing their job.

[@brianmi40]

Pay attention more, it's not CONGRESS, it's FEDERAL JUDGES who will rule in each case instead of employed experts who understood the science and could grasp the complexities involved that is FAR beyond the knowledge of the average Federal judge. As well, there were TWO levels of appeal to prevent abuses: first, an administrative appeal, and second, the VERY SAME ABILITY TO TAKE IT TO FEDERAL COURT. You have no clue.

[@EdmundDantes-l1g]

Chevron was the worst case against our Republic freedoms since Terry v Ohio

[@ricardobarahona3939]

no

[@bradjones5107]

Let's just all vote for President Trump and keep the COCAINE out of the White House!

[@VickiTrusselli]

Blah

[@amercanmade2685]

There is a difference between Temps of a meat cooler and the EPA saying a American Citizen can not drive what we want. Or do what we want to our own Property. Forcing these "Experts" to have to explain in Public and to the Public what they want done and why.

[@Dubya9W9]

The whole " expert " premise is such B.S. it's only trying to give credibility to people where there is none...i've been a truck driver for 18 years..by all accounts that makes me a expert..but why does someone that never sat in one get to tell me how i should do it...he must be an " expert " it's all a joke

[@Mike-zr2jl]

What a shame ... Agencies can't make laws now? Government should get less control, not more. Huge win for the people.

[@DavidMiller-dt8mx]

Those agencies have saved lives - but hey, there are costs for that sort of nonsense, right?

[@littlenickypickletoe]

They have killed and destroyed far more lives.​@@DavidMiller-dt8mx

[@Mike-zr2jl]

@@DavidMiller-dt8mx Those agencies are out of control. Juice is not worth the squeeze

[@g.strauss1813]

Are you sure your supply of drinking water is clean?

[@Mike-zr2jl]

@@g.strauss1813 Yes, I am on well. Old trope. If these agencies stayed in their lane it wouldn't be an issue. The cost or us regulations (per George Mason University Mercatus Center) was 4T dollars ... in 2012. To put that in perspective, $4T is greater than every country in the world except the US/China/Japan. $4 trillion ... in 2012. If we cut 90% of the regulations and people in those agencies we would all be better off.

[@TheYokeOfFaith]

Libs are so baffled by the rule of law, when they see the judicial branch work as intended, they lose what little sense God blessed them with at birth. It's precious to behold.

[@jaredbrooks3035]

Actually, I love this. Federal agencies are way too powerful and have forgotten who they are supposed to be serving.

[@ojd333]

Thank your 45th president.

[@Anna-b8e1t]

It's obvious you do not understand or comprehend what's at stake.

[@gojobuddy]

@@Anna-b8e1tIt’s not about finding out there’s led in your pant. Like sticking men in women’s dressing rooms and on their sports teams. Pfft

[@boom_911]

​@@Anna-b8e1tsounds like they definitely do. This 100% weakens the over powerful regulatory agencies that typically have no one that it can tell them no. If you don't see a problem with an organization having total power without checks and balances, then I'm afraid you don't see the real problem .

This will ruin our country

[@arinlawless5788]

Can't stand watching partisan people talk I remember late 90s early 2000s journalist were putting themselves in danger to get scoops ext now journalism is hanging on by a thread

[@micclay]

There is almost zero "journalism " that is backed by any conglomerate like the networks.

[@steve5133]

Feneral agencies DO NOT have the power to interpret laws, that is the job of the judicial system. That is the purpose of checks and balances. Ambiguity in laws means that they can twist an interpretation to their needs.

[@richpomanFU]

Spot on homie.

[@LadyLeda2]

Have you heard about the 2025 plan that will go into place if Trump gets elected? The USA will be no more if this becomes law. Please help pass this along.

[@kappadarwin9476]

What you are asking for is going to overwhelm the court system. Judges are not experienced in things like food and drug safety. Its a waste of time to defer to a judge when you can just ask someone who works at the FDA.

[@boycottbigtech]

This is the densest thing I’ve read all day. Federal agencies don’t have the power to interpret laws? That is the entire purpose for their existence. They interpret and enforce laws every day all day. The whole exercise of agencies writing the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is an exercise in “interpreting” law.

[@brianmi40]

There WERE CHECKS AND BALANCES. You are CLUELESS about what just happened. Not only was it EXPERTS in the fields who understand the SCIENCE and INTERPRETED THE LAWS, -- which is now moving to CLUELESS JUDGES, there were also TWO LEVELS OF APPEAL: first, an administrative appeal, second, the VERY SAME ABILITY TO GO TO FEDERAL COURT and have a Federal judge rule in the case. They're just trying to CLONE little "Clarence Thomas's" so ALL THOSE JUDGES can line THEIR POCKETS ALSO with business favors to rule in their favor. America is turning into RULE BY EBAY BID.

[@1FXC]

He so mad they took away their rubber stamp.

[@dannycash1948]

with both parties and every large media organization left or right catastrophizing everything, its hard to know what to take seriously anymore.

[@2010MrsKSS]

Bingo!

[@haroldbrown5887]

No no it doesn't what it does overrule is bureaucratic control of the people of the United States. It requires the Congress to do what it's supposed to and make the law unambiguous.

[@Bakes-z4c]

We’ll see. Meanwhile, keep your eyes open, there’s other stuff going on

[@NESig]

Taking power away from unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats is a good thing.

[@batteredskullsummit9854]

Nailed it

[@sophiaestella5611]

Except that those bureaucrats have never been truly unaccountable, have they ?

[@rustybarrel516]

@@sophiaestella5611Of course not. They are perfect angels, immune to the siren song of unfettered power.

[@sophiaestella5611]

@@rustybarrel516 🤔🤔🤔😂😂😂😂😂😂🙄🙄🙄

[@UniqueBreakfastTaco]

safe and effective, amirite?

[@douglasbruce6491]

Thank God Scotus is bringing the out of control bureaucrats under control.

[@tohopes]

i don't think it'll last, but we'll see.

[@jasonwilson3057]

Slavery was decades old law also. Chevron is from 1984, not exactly that long ago.

[@ShadowfaxIsAHorse]

Slavery was also implemented by a majority in that part of the country. Democracy at work. (We are a Republic btw for a reason - which is why slavery isn’t legal any longer.)

[@100pyatt]

Chevron was BIAS right from the start. Totally Unconstitutional and Illegal

[@jasonwilson3057]

@@ShadowfaxIsAHorse long live our Republic

[@DebraStoute-y7n]

Federal tax to be collected for the peotection of this countries borders. That's it, nothing more nothing less. Power back to the states - power to the people.

[@RayThackeray]

Er - what? Try that in English please.

[@virgildavidson4945]

I got tired of hitting the like button in the comments. This didn’t go the way you planned did it ?

[@AnotherAnon735]

Congress is supposed to create the laws, the courts are supposed to interpret them, and the executive bureaucrats are supposed to enforce them. Great that the "legal scholar" you found doesn't understand these basic concepts.

[@jjones5424]

LESS Government, FEWER Agencies,.......................More COMMON SENSE Regulations, MORE Control by the States and the PEOPLE!!! Let the American Marketplace Work!!....................THIS is what AMERICANS WANT!!!!!! Get Government out of the way.

[@sophiaestella5611]

That's worked so well in the past, hasn't it ? I mean, what's a little genocide, slavery, and environmental degradation between friends ?

[@EvelynHayes97]

“Common sense” give me a break

[@jjones5424]

@@sophiaestella5611 exactly! Civil War II.

[@john091077]

How dare the Court try to keep the executive and legislative separate!

[@wkb8326]

If Biden has his way, that won't be the case in the future. He has promised to nominate radical "progressives" to court during his next term.

[@lawrencemcgrogan2746]

They got this one right, whers Trumps immunity?

[@EdK-mi6]

Good move of what the Court did to protect us people

[@superstitiousfishes1247]

you're mad. that's how i know this is good.

[@neal5068]

Raise your hand if you're sick of MSDNC ignorantly attacking SCOTUS 24/7.

[@jenniferhostetter7624]

If they don't get their way it is , fascist, racist, mysogonia, mis information or dis information. I guess these journalists know more about law than the Supreme Court

[@usmc19761980]

Hey Mr. Clean, it isn't law unless congress creates it. It was a policy based upon a warped interpretation of a law.

[@lloydcady7231]

He said rulings from unelected judges how about the unelected people making laws in the different federal agencies . Some of agencies are making laws that they don’t have the authority to make.

[@WDavis-fw2yh]

Sounds illegal?

[@ruds2600]

This was a great ruling.

[@Mike-tx4vr]

Its a win for common sense

[@mooncritter721]

GOOD! That needed to be done a long time ago!

[@sayitaintso7544]

Welcome to Project 2025. Looks like "Freedom" crushed.

[@haroldbrown5887]

I tend to disagree, the wording of the rulings clearly state that the interpretation of a regulation should be that of the people who enacted the regulation originally not some activists that wants to do something that they find in an old dusty drawer to try and enforcer point in a situation that it was never intended for in the first place!

[@JohnnyJones-ic6wv]

Bureaucrats gone wild, and the judges who reign them in. They had a licence to waste money.

[@atirasrc]

Oligarchs like Harlan Crow rely on people like you

[@krs1297]

Are you slow?

[@johnkillian1822]

Winning!!!

[@pinkybeasts]

And now the legislatures can take their time and actually finish out the laws and stop giving it to the government agencies that forces their wills on the american people.

[@latinobatman4683]

This dude is a joke

[@joewoodchuck3824]

That's exactly what SCOTUS is there for. New information leads to new opinions and needs to be tested.

[@darkstar7999]

So Mr. Velshi, you don't really understand how the three branches of government are supposed to work, eh? Oh yes, and "functioning democracies" are supposed to turn over their legislative power to unelected bureaucrats to run things? Bureaucrats who are not answerable to the people, and incidentally, not answerable to the Legislative Branch either, since they are part of the Executive Branch. I do understand how you might not like this, since it upsets the way you think things ought to work, however these "other democracies" you speak of do not have that quaint piece of paper called the Constitution of the United States. They have their rule, we have ours. And ours have been violated for long enough. Thank you Supreme Court for redressing this; perhaps our government will go back to functioning the way it is supposed to, with 3 co-equal branches and separation of powers; at least until left leaning bozos like this one are successful in packing the court to get the results they want. And by the way - it isn't a "power grab." The Supreme Court hasn't taken over the regulation and law making you deeply desire; they have returned the appropriate powers back to the Legislative Branch where it belongs. The "power grab" was the Executive Branch agencies assuming powers not assigned to their branch by the Constitution. The fact that it has been going on for decades does not change that fact. Shame on the Legislative for allowing it, shame on the Executive for doing it, and shame on you for thinking it is a good idea.

[@theseblueeyes]

Very well said.

[@davidison3905]

Since it is MSNBC giving their opinion I believe it would be the opposite of what they are pushing.

[@biggestofallmikes2997]

This is rich coming from liberal media.

[@MrBlueBot5]

This is rich coming from conservative media hacks like you

[@bernalshawn39]

It’s a great day, now that Chevron Doctrine has been finally put to rest

[@stevend474]

Oh no the Supreme Court told congress they have to stop violating the law and follow the constitution.

[@Kainis80]

not so much Congress violating the law, they told that to the alphabet agencies in the executive branch. What they told Congress was in effect: "Do your damned jobs. The laws are YOUR responsibility to craft."

[@brianmi40]

Great SPIN: take the enforcement of laws in complex fields away from EXPERTS and hand them to 1,770 NON-EXPERT Federal judges spread across the country to rule in myriad ways that could even shock Marjorie Taylor Green. Gee, guess the existing administrative APPEAL PROCESS wasn't ENOUGH FOR YOU, and, oh, if THAT FAILS, there was then also a FEDERAL APPEALS PROCESS. This, THIS is why we elect our officials - to avoid the clown show of citizens spouting off who have no clue.

[@brianmi40]

@@Kainis80 They DID draft the laws, they simply empowered the EXPERTS IN THE FIELDS to rule on the individual case particulars. Now 1,770 Federal judges (who are basically CLUELESS on the topics) will rule. They're just trying to CLONE little "Clarence Thomas's" so ALL THOSE JUDGES can line THEIR POCKETS ALSO with business favors to rule in their favor. America is turning into RULE BY EBAY BID.

[@buckeyewill2166]

Can you imagine an unelected Judge trying to determine whether or not to clean up the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio ????

[@nonegiven5295]

From Commiefornia: No it limits the agencies ability to over reach by modifying a law or regulation on their own without oversight. The justices were elected, yes not directly, because they were nominated by elected officials, confirmed by elected officials and appointed by elected officials. So yes they were not directly elected but the elected ones put them there and remember the elected ones do make the laws rules and regulations that the non elected ones are supposed to operate under without overreaching, which is what the court just put a stop to.

[@JohnnyJones-ic6wv]

Drain the swamp.

[@DevellJeffrey]

Wow. That is alarming. Project 25

[@derekhall-j3r]

3 democratic tools on1 screen. Spin spin spin...

[@mandyhaworth4154]

I am so happy to hear the “experts” are out of power now. We keep seeing all these young people who are saying wild things and when you question them, they tell you you’re not an expert. They have all been trained by people like you. This is such a huge deal. This is going to make people free again.

[@AdolfBushka]

COVID "Experts" lied about everything!!

[@philliplewis3754]

Guess what? We are a Federal Republic that "uses" democracy. A democracy dictates that everyone OR their representative participate in making laws that govern We the People. The DEA, ATF&E, AQMD etc don't have the power to make new law so they insert Rules into an already written law. We the People have determined that unelected bureaucrats WILL NOT make law WITHOUT our Representative's from the House and Senate approve it as new legislation. Sir, you are not intelligent enough to sit in that chair.

[@poisonshelf2037]

@@WS-dd8ow That's on The People. You get what you vote for.

[@philliplewis3754]

@@WS-dd8ow there are 435 Representative's in the House and 100 Members of the Senate and 9 Supreme Court Justices, this is the body of legislator's that create our laws. You know the current ones that apparently the really complex laws should be made by what? Wild Dogs? The FMCSA are trying to force a mandate that 18 wheelers should be governed at 65mph. That needs to be addressed by Congress not people trying to destroy the trucking industry. The ATF has determined it's role is that of heaping mountains of laws on top of gun owner's specifically to infringe. We have 40 year's worth of 2A lawsuits, where our Right to gun ownership has been infringed. The previous makeup of SCOTUS, the Communist Super Majority refused to hear any 2A cases and now these laws, regulations and infringements are being dealt with that's why you hear so many case's right now. The butchering of Chevron means that jurisprudence is going to govern We the People not bureaucracy. The AQMD doesn't have the power to set emissions laws for automobiles, but they have been for too many years. If you enjoy government telling you how to live your life move somewhere they do that, we don't enjoy it, we prefer natural selection taking out Left Supremacists.

[@gojobuddy]

The overreach of what kind of light bulbs, stoves we can own. What we can eat like the bugs!

[@davidjames2083]

*One small step for the Supreme Court, but a giant leap for Ginni Thomas* 😠😡🤬

[@dawnbartholomew9727]

LETS GO JENNY!!! FJB

[@LilRebelYell]

Can't make an argument about the case but can make ad hominem attacks on an Justice's spouse. Great retort!🙄🙄🙄

[@jimperkins6073]

Good

[@busabrye]

The American people need to revolt against all this insanity

[@elaineisabelle427]

We will come RoeVember!!!

[@kimp4412]

This is serious stuff!!! VOTE

[@restorefreespeech]

Yes it is! Voting red.

[@markstambaugh3273]

Don't be a fool, this decision returned power back to you and me and out of the hands of a bureaucrat.

[@Qthekat1984]

They stole the most powerful position in the United States in 2020...

[@Robert-ug5hx]

True, vote red

[@MrDucksBill]

This sas a great ruling

[@islandgirlnycbk]

Plz they don't do anything w our safety in mind lol less government is always good

[@Nobody-j9e]

Giving the public the ability to challenge the constitutionality of law written by agencies staffed by presidential appointment is a win for We the People.

[@Jsee66]

The vast vast majority of agency staffs are NOT done by presidential appointment........maybe the person heading an agency might be but not your average person who works at an agency.........I think you are getting confused because Trump has said that he wants all the workers at all the agencies to swear an oath of loyalty to him or be fired and be replaced with Trump loyalists........that is not normal and the agencies have never been run like that......

[@blueberry-ri7eb]

The public already has the right to challenge regulations just ask Alito's wife who challenged an EPA rule.

[@Nobody-j9e]

@@blueberry-ri7eb The Chevron deference gave more power to the president to govern through agencies created by Congress, diluting the separation of powers. This ruling puts the responsibility for making law back where it belongs, in Congress. If you are concerned about project 2025 this ruling negates any chance of these agencies being used in any manner that they were not intended for and if they are it can be challenged in the courts. There will be no more deference given to experts to write law for the president through agencies created by Congress.

[@betsybabf748]

It is understandable that you don't comprehend the ruling at all since you don't even know the difference between a democracy and a republic.

[@MrBENTON78]

We became a Democracy with the Amendments to the Constitution giving everyone rights.

[@crissd8283]

​@@MrBENTON78Incorrect. We are a constitutional republic.

[@belrummm]

Its not a power grab, its their job.

[@animallover7850]

If MSNBC thinks it’s a bad thing then I’m all for it! 💯

[@MichaelHoward-h3k]

Chevron was abused so it was removed

[@klloyd3530]

It would be fine to give agencies that discretion IF they hadn’t disintegrated into bureaucracies that are more interested in CYA than an honest execution of their stated objectives. The SCOTUS has simply put the responsibility back in the hands of the people who are responsible for representing the People in our Republic. WE are supposed to be responsible for the choice of the individuals who are representing us!!!

[@crissd8283]

Exactly. These people act like agencies are run by experts. They are actually run by burocrats that higher experts that are just their to justify what the boss wants to do. The uneducated boss makes the calls in an agency and either the experts find a way to twist and contort the law to fit what the boss wants or they loose their job. Thus "experts" always side with the agency. It's not like these agencies have real experts that can act autonomously using their expertise within the bounds of the law.

[@maryfontaine7868]

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. THAT’S YOUR OPINION …NOT THE SCOTUS’ OPINION…THANK GOD.🇺🇸🦅✝️🕊🙏🏼

[@tmastersat]

This is not a demecorcy majority does not rule here we have rights and state rights. The federal gov is out of control.

[@debchiu]

A business owner having to pay $700 per day for a person to interpret a law in a way they feel is correct is BS. The power grab that you speak of was this ridiculous law that was in place.

[@kappadarwin9476]

Business owners cannot afford to go off what they feel. We have regulations as thick as dictionaries because business owners thought it was a good idea to go off what they feel is correct.

[@brianmi40]

So, what you're saying is, a Federal judge should interpret your X-rays and heart tests to determine the need for open heart surgery versus a pacemaker, OR, just MAYBE it should be EXPERTS IN THE FIELDS? You simply have no understanding of what just happened.

[@asongfromunderthefloorboards]

This is not "No more regulations! Do whatever you want! Dump all your toxic waste in the river!" This is even more ridiculous. This is that regulations are now created by judges instead of by people who actually know how to do the job. It's like in a criminal trial, where an expert has to give a 5th grade level intro to the topic and try to convince a judge versus the other lawyer who will cast doubt on that. Judges will now decide what to do, how to interpret the law. Since judges don't understand the subject matter, we're going to get a lot more bizarre regulations. If you want to keep from being blindsided in doing business and manage all these new irrational regulations, you're going to need to pay twice the lawyers to keep you legal and we'll probably end up with a mess of contradictions.

[@brianmi40]

@@asongfromunderthefloorboards Yes, and it will require HUGE NUMBERS of additional Federal judges to handle the case load. THIS is what they wanted, so that if Trump is elected HE gets to make all those appointments. And keep in mind, a Federal judge is a Federal judge, so they WON'T BE APPOINTED just to rule over the EPA or other agencies, they will ALSO rule over all other Federal cases. We will have HUNDREDS of new judge Aileen Cannons.

[@joshuastrawser9160]

11:04 I don't know that Elie Mystal meant to admit that he prefers Congress to be window dressing giving a veneer of democratic legitimacy to the unelected partisan bureaucracy, but I'm nonetheless glad that he's so open about his autocratic desires for the country. Give a fascist enough room to speak and they will always expose themselves.

[@rumblebudgie2085]

Chevron deference was NEVER law. It was a precedent sent by a single court case. Article 1 of the US construction trumps precedent and laws. Even if it hurts your feelings.

[@brianhillis3701]

Cannotbelieve he said experts at CDC to support his argument. 😅😅😅😅😅

[@bmullin96]

Really? So you think people who do not have medical training and medical degress should work at the CDC?

[@danutabojanczyk3679]

Alternative truth media at work.

[@EricSchryver-v8o]

It really only means elected people will have to make laws, not appointed people. So the public will be better represented and power given back to the citizens.

[@danielconverse1079]

Not true ,for instance farmers who produce milk properties,that doesn't follow CDC or FDA approved rules takes the piwer back to us the citizens to choose what's best for us . Not having government dictate what we can eat or not.

[@Bakes-z4c]

And then go crying to government when you get TB , brucellosis or leptospirosis

[@Thestrappedgrunt]

Trump 2024 !! We need him now more than ever 🎉.

[@quickiequackduckwash]

We need scientifically literate judges and far more ethical scientists to steer governments toward intelligent decision making.

[@jimmyjames6487]

2 weeks to flatten the curve. Trust the science

[@JohnPublic-dk7zd]

Government and intelligent decision making don't belong in the same sentence...

[@bubbabubba2013]

I guess he forgot that our three branches of government are independant of each other. The SC made the right call.

[@jamelgregg946]

Slowly but surely we are going to have a constitutional republic again😂😂😂

[@EvelynHayes97]

And lead paint, bad phone service, over pollution, litigation on the right food temps… so we all get food poisoning… pick your issue…

[@HeatGeek1]

The Republic restored!

[@heidischulze4057]

The Administrative State does not promote "democracy". As the talking head says, federal agencies run our lives. That is not democracy nor is it Constitutional. Bravo Supreme Court.