SCOTUS to hear Loper Bright Enterprises!

[cobber]

The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case involving New Jersey herring fishermen involving an administrative rule that could overturn judicial deference to agencies in Chevron for good.

The impact this will have on ATFE's rule of the day decisions shall be glorious. I shall dance in the moonlight to the funeral pyre of Chevron.

Supreme Court to decide important case on government power - The Indiana Lawyer

The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it will decide whether to jettison a decades-old decision that has been a frequent target of conservatives and, if overruled, could make it harder to sustain governmental regulations.

www.theindianalawyer.com

Supreme Court to Hear Case That Could Rein in Federal Agencies | National Review

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from the case.

www.nationalreview.com

Having worked for a State agency and having seen how rules/regs are devised and how agencies apply them, it's about time the courts cracked down on administrative agencies...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Reserve your Law Office of Kirk Freeman pen today!

First!

 

[bashMOH]

Reserve your Law Office of Kirk Freeman pen today!

What The Supreme Court’s Upcoming Battle Over Chevron Deference Could Mean for Gun Rights - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about commercial fishing that raises an issue the current members of the Court have been very interested in as of late—Chevron Deference. With the Court agreeing to hear the case, there has been a lot of...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

What about the phones?

When/if Chevron is overturned the Law Office of Kirk Freeman shall be giving away pens and phones.

 

[Libertarian01]

I have a question on whether this is wholly wrong or wrong by overreach. It seems to me that when congress passes a law they cannot define nor foresee every little nuance that can exist, so the upholder(s) of that law must be able to fill in the gaps within reason.

Are we saying then that the upholder of a law cannot interpret any nuance, or only along certain lines?

I can see where the government can compel a company to allow oversight, but not compel them to pay for it. The payment, in my opinion, is severe overreach, but the simple allowance of an extra observer is not. How is my thinking either in error or on track?

Regards,

Doug

 

[cobber]

I have a question on whether this is wholly wrong or wrong by overreach. It seems to me that when congress passes a law they cannot define nor foresee every little nuance that can exist, so the upholder(s) of that law must be able to fill in the gaps within reason.

Are we saying then that the upholder of a law cannot interpret any nuance, or only along certain lines?

I can see where the government can compel a company to allow oversight, but not compel them to pay for it. The payment, in my opinion, is severe overreach, but the simple allowance of an extra observer is not. How is my thinking either in error or on track?

Regards,

Doug

How did the Founders deal with the question of regulations? I would start there.

 

[Libertarian01]

How did the Founders deal with the question of regulations? I would start there.

Seeing as how the Founders didn't have any agencies that even could overreach please let me where to begin research?

The first department that even could overreach was the Department of Interior, founded in 1849.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jwamplerusa]

Seeing as how the Founders didn't have any agencies that even could overreach please let me where to begin research?

The first department that even could overreach was the Department of Interior, founded in 1849.

Regards,

Doug

To me, that is part of the point.

Proper application of the 10th Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights should prevent most of the current Federal Government from even existing. There is no need to "interpret" Congress intent if the unconstitutional parts of the Federal Government don't exist.

For what does exist, the limits of an government entity should always stop at what Congress specifically authorized. Generalizations cannot be permitted since the Peoples Representatives did not give their direction upon the matter.

 

[cobber]

Seeing as how the Founders didn't have any agencies that even could overreach please let me where to begin research?

The first department that even could overreach was the Department of Interior, founded in 1849.

Regards,

Doug

Let’s begin with Article I, Section 8, shall we? Were the individual members of Congress going to get out there and build roads, post offices, etc? Maintain a Navy? Coin money? I could go on. Any number of administrative functions implicit in the duties of Congress.
Prior to 1849.
My point being that even in 1791 it took organization to administer even the limited powers in the Constitution. But they did it. So how did we end up with essentially the Fourth branch of government, ie the Administrative Branch? Which appears in many respects to be a coequal of the other three?

 

[BJHay]

This court had the courage to strike Roe v. Wade (I have some issues with it personally but it was a good legal decision). If they're also willing to curtail Chevron then there may be hope for my favorite cause; reviving compliance with the commerce clause.

Wicker v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich should go.

 

[Ingomike]

Wicker v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich should go.

THIS!!!

 

[manifest destiny]

my favorite cause; reviving compliance with the commerce clause.

Wicker v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich should go.

You revolutionary, you. Good call! It would be profound if commerce clause abuse were to be restrained, even slightly.

 

[Ingomike]

Ending Chevron deference will protect the Second Amendment from abusive apparatchiks

The United States of America is an exceptional country with an exceptional Constitution and Bill of Rights. The principles enshrined in the founding documents have been copied by several countries ove...

bearingarms.com

 

[JAL]

This is the "Loper Bright" Decision we've been waiting for!

This puts significant limitations on Executive Agency Rulemaking which has been freewheeling -- reinforcing Agencies must make rules that have authority based on Constitution and/or Congressional Acts -- that they cannot do what they damned well please with the courts deferring to them and their interpretation.

Quoted from a portion of the the Syllabus . . .

---

"Chevron has proved to be fundamentally misguided. It reshaped judicial review of agency action without grappling with the APA, the statute that lays out how such review works. And its flaws were apparent from the start, prompting the Court to revise its foundations and continually limit its application.​

​

Experience has also shown that Chevron is unworkable. The defining feature of its framework is the identification of statutory ambiguity, but the concept of ambiguity has always evaded meaningful definition. Such an impressionistic and malleable concept “cannot stand as an every-day test for allocating” interpretive authority between courts and agencies."​

---

The rest of syllabus puts countless hammer blows onto the wood stake SCOTUS put into the heart of the Chevron vampire. This will have massive effect on many 2A related lawsuits dealing with BATFE Rulemaking! I suggest reading the Decision Syllabus at the beginning.

Decision can be read here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

6-3 Decision was split into the Usual Suspects with Sotomayor, Kagan, and KB Jackson dissenting.

 

[Alamo]

Haven't read it yet but sounds important.

 

[Alamo]

 

[jwamplerusa]

It doesn't get much simpler than " Chevron is overruled "!

Hallelujah!

 

[OneBadV8]

When/if Chevron is overturned the Law Office of Kirk Freeman shall be giving away pens and phones.

So how do we get these pens and phones?

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

First for phones!

 

[bwframe]

Supreme Court’s Fisherman Case Could Upend Executive Gun Control Overreach

This is a fish story that could have seismic impacts for the way the federal government generates gun control regulations. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases – both challenging a National Marine Fisheries Service rule that requires commercial fishing boats to pay for government...

www.nssf.org

The Supreme Court Could Make or Break the ATF

Justices are weighing cases with broad significance for the power of federal agencies, including one directly involving the ATF.

www.thetrace.org

 

[Kirk Freeman]

"Lindsay! Order pens and phones with office logos!"

What a glorious day, moi drooks. Death to the Admin State and the Rule of the Day.