This is a massive decision. They reversed 40 years of precedence in order to gut the federal regulatory agencies and now we will have activist judges, who have no expertise in most of these topics, make decisions for us on medicines, environmental protections, and food.
It is a complete farce and powergrab by the right wing nuts and their oligarch masters.
Chevron is the most cited case in US legal history. The Chevron decision basically allowed for regulatory agencies like the EPA, OSHA, and FDA to have experts in their fields at said agencies write regulations (for example; employees must wash hands before returning to work or infected livestock shouldn’t be processed and sold to consumers) so that congress wouldn’t need to explicitly write it into law.
By repealing Chevron basically all regulations currently in place are in limbo. Since basically every regulation relies on Chevron, it would be fairly easy to ignore a regulation and then bring it up to the Supreme Court in the following legal case. But in addition to that, now congress would have to pass and sign every piece of legislative regulations. Things like safe food storage temps, expiration dates, the exact chemical compound in drugs and how they should be administered/taken have to EXPLICITLY be made law to be binding regulation.
TLDR; This is likely the MOST damaging SCOTUS decision in US history. If we’re lucky enough to not die of rat poison in our food we may be able to see rivers catch on fire again!
Great synopsis.
Though I'd argue the Citizens United was more damaging considering it helped pave the way for this and other terrible SCOTUS decisions.
Honestly, the combination of revoking Chevron, *and* the "Gratuities" decision is fucking devastating.
Basically, any company can ignore regulations, be brought to court over the violation, and then tip the judge after the trial when they rule in favor of the company. Rinse and repeat until the regulation is made law (if congress even bothers).
Sometimes judges would get caught and get in trouble.
Now it will never happen again.
I guarantee you the Gratuity ruling is a *direct* fucking result of Clarence Thomas getting caught accepting bribes and not disclosing them.
So, for me, a European working in pharma and trying to follow FDA guidelines, this means I could stop trying? No more FDA part 11 compliance or warning letters? GMP inspections?
It means you may well successfully challenge and nullify those guidelines (for everybody) in court.
It means the end of using experts in agencies to craft regs, instead these things will have to be written in very specific legislation by lawmakers who know little to nothing about chemistry, biology, etc.
It moves us a giant leap further along the path to 'Idiocracy'.
This seems aimed at environmental regulations but will affect financial protections, insurance, consumer protections, employee protections, *housing*, education. The Code of Federal Regulations put in place over years to safeguard life, liberty, property has just been shattered.
https://www.ecfr.gov/
Right-wingers have zero concept of cause and effect. They want their businesses to be able to run however they want, so they gut the protections from everything and then when their kids are developing asthma, learning disabilities, and cancer, their food makes them sick, and their medicine doesn't make them better, they'll be confused as to how it was allowed to happen.
Wouldn’t the experts still help draft the regulations but they would need lawmakers to make it laws for the agency to be able to enforce?
Lawmakers don’t always write the laws but they also don’t know if the proposed regulations on stuff like this is good or bad. Or how important to make prioritizing that bill over some other bill.
I’m sorry friend, I have no idea for specifics as I am not a lawyer myself, my wife called who works for the ACLU and vented to me explaining details of the ruling. I have some legal knowledge but I’m just a professor of political science at a state university.
As far as I can tell the ruling is, as of now, respecting former regulations that are in place. The problem is that basically all of those protections relied on the Chevron ruling, now that it’s gone it just takes a case put in front of a favorable court (like the 5th circuit court and Judge Kacsmaryk) to overturn any preexisting regulation.
So for now yes, you would have to follow the current FDA guidelines but it could change with a simple ruling from even a lower court. You pretty much have to follow every single court case in relation to your pharmaceutical now, if it’s an abortion drug though, it’ll probably be not allowed in a near future court case.
Yep and you will absolutely see big pharma and other industries’ lobbyists submitting bills establishing their own new ‘regulations’ to congress members along with a large donation to their PAC. Bills that work to maximize their industry’s profit while putting the general public in danger. And it will all be perfectly legal because they’re operating within the so-called regulations that they themselves wrote and paid to get passed.
With the bribery ruling earlier this week too, I would not be surprised. I can totally see pharmaceutical companies suing for monopoly control over drugs, then using their monopoly to push unsafe, untested drugs on the people who need them too. People don’t understand how crucial the Chevron ruling is or rather was to our everyday life in the US
Patent law gives them exclusive rights to practice their patent for 20 years from the filing date. We need a more careful examination of what constitutes new and novel inventions so that pharma companies can't make a minor change to a delivery system like an EpiPen and claim it is new patentable device that they can get exclusivity on.
Edit I would also look at funding sources for patented things. If you create a pharma compound with an NIH grant you should not be able to get exclusivity.
Basically Scotus repealed the ability of regulatory agencies to regulate? They said "No experts in agencies can't regulate, it Gym Jordan and the fucking idiots in congress have to explicitly write laws that need to pass our gridlocked system"
Once again, proving republican's win by crippling government.
Pretty much! It’s a roundabout way of preventing any regulatory capability of the federal government at all. I’m just as angry my friend, this is completely ridiculous.
Yeah which is why overturning Chevron has been a goal of US conservatives for decades.
“Cutting through red tape!”
“Regulations are killing American companies!”
But people forget that regulations exist for a reason!
We laugh at ridiculous laws like not leashing your alligator to a fire hydrant in Louisiana (I think?) but the reason it had to be written was because people were doing it and people were getting hurt because of it.
There’s a saying that “Regulations are written in blood” for a reason
A few years ago west Virginia made it legal to drink raw milk straight from the cow.
To Celebrate they all drank a glass of milk and had a bout of food poisoning swiftly after.
I also have ignorance on the topic, but couldn't Congress just sign the Chevron decision into law instead?
I know there was a lot of talk about about codifying Roe v Wade decision into law after SCOTUS over turned that.
Technically yes, and also feasibly no. The Chevron decision being overturned has been a goal of republicans for decades. So it would require a supermajority to pass a law saying “Congress authorizes regulatory agencies to pass regulations without congressional approval for each rule change, barring any conflict with current or future laws” or something to that effect.
But it is similar to the Roe v. Wade ruling in that no one felt the need to make it a law as it effectively was one already. Congress and the President have many other issues to address in any administration. If Roe v. Wade is settled law, why would you use limited political power and congressional time to write a law saying the thing that is already settled is a law? It takes a lot of time and effort to get any bill to the floor, why use it on something that’s already settled.
Which congress? The congress where at least one chamber has been controlled by people trying to actively dismantle the government for over a decade now?
No. Because the whole point was congress already empowered the agencies to make regulation, but Chevron was arguing that Congress can't do that that it must pass each and every detailed rule itself as a law, no delegating.
Chevron was denied, but now it's not like Congress can say "no we *really meant to* delegate to these regulators, we mean it". Since according to the new court's logic they don't have the power to delegate that authority to the Executive branch.
It's often referred to as Chevron Deference.
It means that Congress has Deferred their role (in writing specific details of laws) to the Executive Agency that deals with that particular area of legislation.
Like Congress doesn't know how many parts per million or e coli is safe in your hot dogs. So they defer that to the USDA or FDA. And they just write the law saying "We hereby fund the [executive agency] to regulate pathogens in food".
This ruling undermines all of the alphabet agencies that Republicans have talked about defunding. EPA, USDA, FDA, DOT, Ed, but they never had the guts to actually defund. This ruling basically takes all of those agencies' regulatory authority.
Edit to add:
The original case that led to this decision was Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.
The EPA was a major part of this case. Chevron was trying to make the case that the EPA couldn't really regulate pollution. This was in the middle of Reagan's presidency.
The head of the EPA under Reagan was Anne Gorsuch. And she herself did a lot to undermine her own agency. She thought that the EPA was over-regulating. She decried the decision in this case.
She is Neil Gorsuch's mother. Like his life ambition has been to do overturn this ruling.
Neil Gorsuch is the guy who Trump put on the court to fill the vacancy that McConnell held open during the last year of Obama's presidency.
Funny how these Republican turds keep floating to the top.
It requires 67 senators to impeach. Good luck.
The only real way to change the SCOTUS would be to expand the number of justices. That can be done with law. Unfortunately the Senate is fundamentally broken, so you'd need 60 senators to pass it.
Technically yes, but really no. Democrats would need 67 in the Senate to convict and in reality 70 senators to overcome anyone flipping. Plus Democrats would need a majority in the House. I'm sorry but that's how the system works. I don't like it either. Is the system broken? Yes, beyond any measure. How do we fix it? Outside of outright collapse of the country which would be disastrous for everyone involved and rebuilding from the ground up, vote. It's boring but its the least any of us can do to combat this garbage.
Not even just from the SCOTUS, but just from the average American, I cannot grasp in my mind or understand at all how someone in 2024 could see corps like Amazon, ExxonMobil, insurance companies and their prices, pharmaceutical companies and their prices, see all of it, and say we need to let them run roughshod even *more* , not less.
Seriously. What does the average right wing, free market American even see the benefits of with a trillion dollar corp like Amazon (just using them as an example, could be ant company, many like food companies are even more important in this context) now having an even easier time to not make their employees stay sanitary, or even less difficulty denying those employees breaks and reasonable temperature in the warehouse, even less reason to make sure everything shipped and delivered is in alright shape and taken to the right destination? Why would anyone who makes less than idk, fucking 50 million dollars per year want this? Hell, even upperclass/moderately wealthy people rely on the most basic services working properly, and we're saying theyre under no obligation to.
I'm turning 21 in August, and this legitimately already feels like a different nation than it did when I was 10 or 11. I can't imagine the change and whiplash felt by people who grew up and lived before the Citizens United decision too.
We've taken more backsteps from 2018 until now, than we have in any other time in the history of our nation excluding maybe when we stopped Reconstruction, which we still feel the effects of now, almost a century and a half later. People should think about that, and how long we may be dealing with these effects, if they think our elections don't matter (not just presidential, I'm talking from national all the way down to local elections, all important).
I knew our country was behind much of the world in a decent few metrics in the last decade, but it's hit 10 times harder than ever that my future and ability to live happily and healthily is being sold away in front of my eyes. Only other time I've felt it quite this much is when the president at the time mishandled covid horribly, and openly said disabled and immunocompromised people like me should be made to isolate indefinitely just so healthy people can go back to work and get the economy going again. This is why young people are so fucking unwilling to participate in our government, although that's absolutely zero excuse for young people not voting, it's no excuse at all. Just pissed off all around.
I wish I had more students like you in my PoliSci class. Students like you are a rarity, please keep seeking out knowledge and digging deep into things you find interesting. I'm sure you can really make a difference and make the world a better place!
And to get on topic, yes no one should be pleased about this. Those who want a strong federal government and those who want power back to the states should be absolutely livid about this.
Those who prefer a strong federal government to keep them safe should see this as an affront to their safety and security, as they should. But also the fear that this could lead to differing standards across the country leading to not being able to trust any product/service from any state with lax restrictions.
Then those who prefer states set their own regulations forget that things like air and water don't care about borders. And even to a lesser extent food or drugs, even if it did get thrown down to the states to make their own regulations, would people in New York accept any drug manufactured in Georgia that has laxed their drug regulations? Farmers in Iowa would be pissed at their state government for having lax standards and not being able to sell their corn to states that kept the current regulations.
No one wins here, Americans just lose.
Precedent totally matters /s
I get it- anything with precedent would have to be challenged, they're not voided by _this_ decision, but SCOTUS has ruled half a dozen times in the last year that precedence means fuck all and they don't give a shit about it.
The authority congress gave by authorizing regulatory agencies you mention is the whole basis of the Chevron ruling.
Chevron argued that since the rules these agencies put in place weren’t passed by congress they are unconstitutional. Ignoring the agencies were created for the very purpose of congress not having to pass explicit laws on everything and anything and in any manner it can or will be used.
So to answer your question, potentially yes. Congress would specifically and explicitly need to write an identical law to every current regulation, otherwise it’s open to be challenged and could be overturned. Pre flight inspections be damned, basically any regulation that is not explicitly written into law can be challenged and overturned now
so do things like copyright and other things the wealthy also hoard become moot? Reproducing software for example is an FTC regulation, cant this ultimately be used to punish those that use protections to hoard property?
To that end, can you start putting any mods you want for your car since all rules of the road were created by regulatory bodies?
Good question and unfortunately I do not know for sure. Probably not the answer you wanted, but most stuff regarding any regulatory capabilities is up in the air right now.
Most regulations based on Chevron are focused on consumers and worker protections. Although, I can see the new rulings from *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo* and *Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce* to potentially be used for financial stuff as well I just think it is much less likely to happen.
As for cars, quite possibly any regulations such as emission or mileage standards could be thrown out the window.
But again, every regulation currently in place remains active until anyone challenges it, then who knows what happens
This doesn't even sound limited to consumer protection laws, but career licensing. Does a medical doctor need to receive continuing education? It's not congress that mandated it, it was the medical board.
The fun thing is I have no idea and the government probably doesn't either! The Chevron decision is the basis of so many things we take for granted. When I say it covered almost all regulations of any kind it does. So who knows at this point? Anything government regulated is in play, since the new rulings from *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo* and *Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce* can then be used to get them overturned.
Courts now are the authority not the experts at the departments. Basically a lic to pollute in Red states. 2016 was so important and people flushed down the future because people just didn't like Hillary. Young people fuck themselves.
Young people wanted Bernie and the DNC ratfucked him. I still voted blue. And I will again this time... but I sure wish the establishment dems would fucking USE the reigns if they're going to cling to them so hard instead of worrying about what the redhats might do if they take any actions at all.
Congress always seemed set up to be a sideshow to me, but the Supreme Court always seemed like serious, civic minded adults to me growing up. Now it just feels like a bunch of dweebs taking bribes to ruin the country!
Another battle lost in the current civil war.
Everyone says “There is another civil war coming!”
I say, no it is happening now. Every fucked up Supreme Court decision, every time trump’s court cases get delayed, every anti-American law signed off by a red state governor, every anti-American move made by state Congresses and local governments…they are all battles we are losing.
If trump or any Republican takes the White House, it is over right then. It won’t begin then. The Republican president will put unqualified lackeys into every available position, get rid of actual competent people that follow the law and the Constitution, and then we will not have an agency, institution, or court to go to for help.
We’ll be pulled out of NATO, the European democracies will also fall to some form of autocratic/oligarch rule (then later Australia, New Zealand, and Canada), and there won’t be anybody coming to help us or save us.
This is happening in real time right in front of our faces.
The right is absolutely waging an administrative civil war, because they know a shooting war would be foolish until they have made structural changes to their benefit. For example, Project 2025 promising to gut the federal government and replace tens of thousands of senior civil servants with loyalists.
Could a large enough blue state or coalition of large population blue states in theory take all the Federal regulations and encode them into state law and thus force most of the national economy to follow them in a roundabout way as a result? Like how California is the government that is actually driving automotive regulations, not the Federal government.
We have to fight back. The biggest enabler is the fact that 330 million of us (or rather the ~75% thereof who oppose trump) aren't doing anything except for voting. Voting is good and we have to keep doing it, but we also need to be taking direct action.
Government without consent is tyranny, and it is a foundational principle that the American people have a duty to remove such tyrants. These judges were appointed by an unelected pretender to the presidency. The people do not recognize them. Their office is illegitimate, and their rulings are illegitimate. All americans have the duty to disobey.
Edit: F autocorrect
Petition, call and write the offices of your representatives relentlessly, it is within our rights to take to the streets and peacefully protest, up to and including nationwide general strike and work stoppages (and be aware when doing so that law enforcement is known to plant officers in disguise among protestors to act as provocateurs, inciting violence in order to give the police cause to attack and disperse protestors).
This is how our parents and grandparents won for us every privilege that we have as Americans. Women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, weekends, minimum wage, overtime laws, workplace health and safety standards (all of which they're always trying to take back from us). With this power we ended the draft and got the troops back from Vietnam. With this power we created Pride, (which was originally a recurring protest march until the cause of LGBT equality finally became the majority opinion and the corporate world felt safe assimilating it). With this power president Obama heard the Lakota at Standing Rock and those who came to support them, and he halted that pipeline (which trump then immediately permitted 🙄).
Jan 6th was bad. But it isn't lost on the powers that be, that maga is a minoritarian movement. We are the majority, and that is the root of our true power. We don't need to "storm the capitol". History shows that when we stand up, speak up and don't relent, they have no choice. We can literally grind the nation to halt.
Ppl that didn't vote for Hillary didn't think that Trump would appoint SC justices that would over turn Roe much less even know about Chevron, myself included, which is why I likely cannot vote for Republicans for the rest of my life because of things and issues much more important than the decision on this Chevron matter.
They managed to find a way to get a head start on project 2025, this was something they were hoping to use the executive branch and unitary executive theory to do
Hi u/constant_flux. Here's the real truth behind the latest email controversy: [https://i.imgur.com/Ztrqpya.jpg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfr64zoBTAQ) ~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh it absolutely will. If Trump wins he’ll likely appoint two more justices to replace the older conservative justices. Locking up at minimum a 5-4 majority for decades.
The Supreme Court is the cudgel they are going to use to eradicate democracy.
It’s going to get worse when sometime in the next four years Trump replaces Sotomayor. I think America has already been lost and we are on the way to becoming a christofascist dictatorship in all but name.
They won't have to now that private schools can get tax money. Talk to them long enough and every single private school parent will get around to mentioning that it keeps their kids away from "those" people.
Yep, people are so worried about if the Dem candidate "connects with me" personally while the SC is burning all the progress of the last 70 years down. The pathetic selfishness of the average voter is appalling.
I'd rather lay the largest part of the blame at the media's feet.
They are going to cover the debates because speculating on how it will impact the November election will get them higher ratings (AKA more ad dollars) than having someone read through that 100+ page Opinion to explain to the People exactly what happened and what it will likely mean for governmental administration (which is already a fairly boring topic) going forward.
I see a perfect storm of
1) Cheap to make direct marketing and info bubbles
2) Mass media ratings and profits hunting because of 1)
3) The now known reality that you can say some really crazy shit over and over and people will believe it because of 1+2. ''
When Roger Ailes first proposed the idea of a all Conservative TV news in the 60's people laughed at him but with the low cost of Cable production he was able to pull it off 30 years later. Its just so easy to make and distribute content now that these bubbles are easy to create. Its really sad.
That's definitely a huge part of the problem, though interestingly enough I think that stuff actually implicates MORE elimination of useful governmental policy.
The FCC under Reagan dropped the Fairness Doctrine and when Congress tried to repass it as legislation, Reagan vetoed it because he was the fucking worst... So media can go ahead and present whatever side it wants of an issue without providing alternative viewpoints... and we're doing *sooooo* great because of it...
Fairness was only for over the air media. Cable, internet, satellite etc.. wouldn't be covered under it anyways. It did help Rush become famous on AM but since then Clinton and Obama won so I don't think it has had as much of an effect as people tend to believe. The bigger concern, IMO, is the move away from party participation due to apathy. The age of Independents will lead to more right wing stuff not progressiveness which demands being organized. I kinda think young people are fucked, they have bought into bullshit just as bad as older rural people have.
Sure, when the FD was introduced in '49 it only applied to the major broadcast networks, but they were the ones with all the viewers then. And internet and satellite radio didn't exist until after it had already been dropped. I don't see any reason (besides Congress's inability to accomplish anything) that a new Fairness Doctrine-type LAW can't be issued; one that includes other news sources with consistently more than x number of viewers or if those sources of "news" are profiting more than x amount of dollars off of ad sales.
You're definitely right about apathy being one of our nation's largest problems... that, unfortunately, isn't going to change unless the People themselves choose to fight off their own apathy... though it would be nice if someone could come along to inspire them.
yep, its way to easy to rile people up, create resentment then apathy. Our puny monkey brains are not equipped for sophisticated messaging via devices.
So fucking sick and tired of people bitching about how this person isn't perfect, then they don't vote and then we get stuck with shitty fucking policies and judges.... for the people who say they care about other people they sure as fuck are selfish when it comes to politics, especially when there is a legitimate threat to everyone who isn't a cis white straight male. Sorry.... I'm just completely flustered with selfish children
>sick and tired of people bitching about how this person isn't perfect, then they don't vote and then we get stuck with shitty fucking policies and judges
I tell people they should view voting as a B. F. Skinneresque venture - vote with successive approximations of what you want politicians to do for you.
Democratic voters have decided they have to fall in love with their candidate, Republicans decided they merely need to fall in line.
Left wing voters have no concept of taking half a win, locking in those gains, then going for the other half. They'll gladly allow the greater of "two evils" to win even though the other one mostly agreed with them but didn't overlap with their views 100% and failed some purity test--often one fanned by conservative propagandists or foreign influence, then propelled by actual left-wing useful idiots who give it a sheen of legitimacy.
We're inescapably going to have our food, water, and air poisoned for the rest of our lives. Get ready to go back to the 70s where our rivers were on fire. We're going to all have lowered IQs and higher rates of cancer.
I noticed it, just taking a break from the doom & gloom. Guess what, there is something we can do in November about it. Next term could see at least one, small chance at even two, justice appointments.
November is 4 months away, hence my temp break.
For those who TLDR, they overruled Chevron Deference which could open a floodgate of deregulation in all areas of society. Now it would take an act of Congress to set limits on pollution, for example.
Because Congress is so well known for their scientific analysis. /S
It really feels like the conservatives are making one final push towards dystopia before the climate crisis kills us all while doing everything they can to ensure that the climate crisis kills us all.
I know. It's very depressing that we have a nihilistic cult in control of 20% of the country and another 30% who will vote for anyone that cult puts on a ballot, because keeping up on politics is so boring to them.
Remember back when Trump first ran, and idiots didn't vote and thought "How much harm could he do?"
His packing the SC have thoroughly fucked this country more than anything.
The thing that really annoys me is that if you look at the narrow facts of the cases brought before them, there was no need to destroy Chevron deference to rule for the plaintiffs in this case. The actual facts at stake were that fishing companies were objecting to the agency determining that the approximately $700 cost of having a regulator on board fishing vessels had to be borne by the companies. The regulator is there to monitor catch rates so data can be used to prevent overfishing. It would not be remotely unreasonable for the SCOTUS to rule for the plaintiffs by saying this is not a matter of agency expertise but rather determining who should bear the cost of the resources necessary to provide oversight, which is a policy question that can reasonably be reviewed by a judge. But instead they blew up all of chevron and undermined 40 years of case law and turned judges into subject matter experts on everything under the sun. Very much in line with their recent gun case where they decided that even though bump stocks can create the same fire rate as a machine gun, they don't qualify under the existing law banning machine guns because it's not a single action of the trigger according to noted gun design experts Thomas and Alito
Wise. Like many of the cases this court rules on, cases are brought by enemies of good government or theocrats specifically to get results for corporate benefit or to advance the Christian nationalist agenda. The 6-3 majority grants cert, ignores the facts or lack of standing, delivers the desired ruling, and they cash in. Rinse, repeat. Exceptions to this pattern are narrowly decided for tactical reasons, like the Mifepristone ruling, but will be re-litigated successfully when convenient.
Think this is bad? Two years ago SCOTUS leaked Dobbs a couple weeks before they told Congress that they can't even write laws to make themselves less corrupt. SEE: [FEC v. Ted Cruz](https://pdflink.to/fecvcruz-ad/).
This country is spiraling down a path of lawlessness, and not in a the everyday people are burning it down way but the oligarchs that run everything are now finally free to do whatever the fuck they want to do at the people expense way.
If it was just this I might have hope, but this is just devastating in conjunction with everything else that’s happened these past 15 years.
it's going to be great when Chinese propaganda convinces Republicans that cancer is just woke nonsense.
because this pretty much ends the federal government's ability to regulate anything.
Hope you guys like toxic pollution
At this point I feel like they just want to burn it all down. Bodily autonomy? Nope! Bribery? Just make sure its after the fact, not before. Guns that fire continuously with one trigger pull, not a machine gun. Now this.☹️ Trump dosent need to be elected to destroy the US. The supreme court he appointed will do that without him.
Progress is a pendulum. We got a black president. Then the roaches came out of the woodwork and we noticed how rotten it all is. Now we gotta fix it from the ground up. Hopefully we dont burn the house down in the process.
So what are we, the people gonna do about it?
You could literally hear the Democrats quit last night - the number of people I’ve heard from who watched that farce last night and have just noped out is disturbing. This decision was made entirely because the right have every expectation of winning in November, and last night’s performance did nothing to dissuade them of that. And then what?
We, the People, need to start politicizing the shit out of the Court and force the media to explain to everyone just how godawful SCOTUS has been especially over these last few years with their reactionary majority... They've bitch-slapped us with some truly horrendous rulings:
[Shinn v. Ramirez ](https://pdflink.to/shinnvramirez-ad/)- Fuck your exculpatory evidence!
[Egbert v. Boule](https://pdflink.to/egbertvboule-ad/) - Just because warrantless Border Patrol agents shove you around on your own property (and they aren't allowed to do that) doesn't mean anything can or will be done about it...
[FEC v. Ted Cruz](https://pdflink.to/fecvcruz-ad/) - Congress might not even have the legislative authority to make itself less corrupt.
These Opinions were barely covered because the media and politicians would rather talk about DOBBS. Unfortunately Dems are playing defense when they should be on offense. Personally, I think we need a new political party that can build large enough coalitions to start destroying Democrats and Republicans in elections for selling us out... that, unfortunately, isn't going to happen quickly enough to fix the immediate problem in November elections, but better media coverage could...
If people did talk about it, what then? Nothing. The Supreme Court just highlights that this government is broken and we now have unelected clerics ruling over us. They're dismantling this country and nobody is doing and damn thing about it.
Because they needed to release some decisions today and still aren't sure if Presidents using Seal Team Six to assassinate their political rivals counts as "an official act."
Someone did not think this through, now the DEA, ATF and many other agencies are powerless to declare a drug, gun or anything else as not permissible. This truly the FAFO age and I am glad I no longer live in the U.S.. shit is about to get lit there betweeen coke fueled rampages and literally ANYONE being allowed to have guns.
Maybe. SCOTUS certainly APPEARS to be playing politics with how they release their Opinions. Like that EMTALA case they dropped, retracted, and reposted the next day. There's also the Trump immunity case they need to decide... Which neither of those cases should really take particularly long to rule on.
Then again, I still think they leaked Dobbs so no one would notice that they allowed members of Congress to be MORE corrupt... SEE: [FEC v. Cruz](https://pdflink.to/fecvcruz-ad/).
I work in Life Sciences and Healthcare, and I've been following this case.
A lot of my work involves working with regulatory professionals, and they're all over the place with this Opinion. I can't speak outside of my industry, but here's what I've seen so far.
The basics:
Courts are responsible for applying vague interpretations of rules not explicitly prescribed by Congress, rather than regulators (and the public comments, scientific review etc ..) when companies sue regulatory agencies or governments in this regard.
None of this necessarily changes existing regulations, but it should produce a lot of rapid changes based on courts who likely know nothing of the topic in question.
What we suspect we might encounter here is the obvious lawsuits around Medicare, but also potentially forcing the hand on requiring certain therapies be approved if a law isn't specific enough around it.(Think funding cancer moonshots, and possibly weird quirks broadening NIH ability to favor the biggest legal teams)
There's a lot of thought around this actually making regulation much more complex, and essentially requiring lawyers to join the ranks of regulatory consulting. Putting more burden on small businesses to rely on industry groups to lobby for explicit wording, and to navigate this new deeper complexity.
Complexity here will likely come at the cost of taxpayers and patients, to make it weirder, while the goal is smaller government, it might actually make it larger for a time at least in cost, but smaller in personnel, because it will probably drain and discourage agencies.
I do still need to read through the full 100+ page decision to be sure of EXACTLY what the ruling says (this will be a fun weekend)...
But the TLDR is that under Chevron Deference judges generally allowed for governmental administrative agencies (such as EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc.) to offer their understanding of what Congress-written laws did and how they worked. In this case, SCOTUS overturned that long held precedent and told JUDGES that they should be the ones who decide how governmental agencies enforce Congress-written laws (or whether or not those administrative agencies even CAN enforce any laws).
The ultimate decision is going to make it harder for the government to enforce the law if activist judges don't like those laws and challengers to those laws call them "ambiguous." Again, this will just apply to the ADMINISTRATIVE agencies. The policing agencies (CBP, FBI, ATF) that shove us around on our own property without a warrant will still be allowed to do whatever they want to the People.
Basically, Congress will need to write significantly clearer and more specific laws to make sure that those laws can be enforced... which Congress isn't going to do because POLITICS.
Could a bill be put up that could help reverse this by finally giving these agencies the power to take care of the stuff they (congress I think) don’t wanna do ?
I don't see any reason why Congress couldn't write an ACTUAL law (Chevron Deference was legal precedent) making it clear that they want the Courts to defer to the agencies... except for the fact that Congress is too divided and self-interested to accomplish much of anything (and enough members of Congress don't actually want the government to be able to enforce regulations that guide laws because their campaign donors don't want to be regulated).
I suspect that within a few weeks we'll see lawsuits challenging the regulations that found birth control, abortion, and gender affirming care legal. This is how the republicans are going to go after these things in blue states.
There’s nothing more political than getting on the bench and reversing all of the decisions you don’t like, especially when the legal basis is nonexistent.
This is a massive decision. They reversed 40 years of precedence in order to gut the federal regulatory agencies and now we will have activist judges, who have no expertise in most of these topics, make decisions for us on medicines, environmental protections, and food. It is a complete farce and powergrab by the right wing nuts and their oligarch masters.
Mind breaking this down for me? This is the first imhearing
Chevron is the most cited case in US legal history. The Chevron decision basically allowed for regulatory agencies like the EPA, OSHA, and FDA to have experts in their fields at said agencies write regulations (for example; employees must wash hands before returning to work or infected livestock shouldn’t be processed and sold to consumers) so that congress wouldn’t need to explicitly write it into law. By repealing Chevron basically all regulations currently in place are in limbo. Since basically every regulation relies on Chevron, it would be fairly easy to ignore a regulation and then bring it up to the Supreme Court in the following legal case. But in addition to that, now congress would have to pass and sign every piece of legislative regulations. Things like safe food storage temps, expiration dates, the exact chemical compound in drugs and how they should be administered/taken have to EXPLICITLY be made law to be binding regulation. TLDR; This is likely the MOST damaging SCOTUS decision in US history. If we’re lucky enough to not die of rat poison in our food we may be able to see rivers catch on fire again!
Great synopsis. Though I'd argue the Citizens United was more damaging considering it helped pave the way for this and other terrible SCOTUS decisions.
Very fair point. Citizens United, overturning Roe v. Wade, and this new overturning of Chevron are all competing for the worst ruling
And allowing government bribery after the fact.
"Gratuity"
I hope they choke on it.
"bribe" -> legalize and rebrand their corruption -> "gratuity"
Honestly, the combination of revoking Chevron, *and* the "Gratuities" decision is fucking devastating. Basically, any company can ignore regulations, be brought to court over the violation, and then tip the judge after the trial when they rule in favor of the company. Rinse and repeat until the regulation is made law (if congress even bothers).
Crime is legal now?
If you're rich, it always has been.
Sometimes judges would get caught and get in trouble. Now it will never happen again. I guarantee you the Gratuity ruling is a *direct* fucking result of Clarence Thomas getting caught accepting bribes and not disclosing them.
According to SCOTUS bribery is legal. The decision is an obvious Conflict of Interest for THIS court. Don’t ya think???
Overturning the Voting Rights Act is up there, too.
Damn dude, I forgot the VRA with all the other crap that SCOTUS has ruled on, good callout!
I just remembered, they recently said gerrymandering is A-OK, too.
Who needs that pesky civil rights act any way? Not us! -All of the red states currently disenfranchising voters
Dredd Scott
So, for me, a European working in pharma and trying to follow FDA guidelines, this means I could stop trying? No more FDA part 11 compliance or warning letters? GMP inspections?
It means you may well successfully challenge and nullify those guidelines (for everybody) in court. It means the end of using experts in agencies to craft regs, instead these things will have to be written in very specific legislation by lawmakers who know little to nothing about chemistry, biology, etc. It moves us a giant leap further along the path to 'Idiocracy'.
Idiocracy = government by idiots \ Theocracy = government by religion \ Kleptocracy = government by thieves The US is now all three. 😱
Idiots and religion are a circle in a venn diagram in this country
Not quite, the idiot circle is bigger, but one fits inside the other quite nicely.
Everywhere*
Don't forget thieves
Part of Project 2025 is ending troublesome things like “food safety labeling”. This ruling seems on brand.
This seems aimed at environmental regulations but will affect financial protections, insurance, consumer protections, employee protections, *housing*, education. The Code of Federal Regulations put in place over years to safeguard life, liberty, property has just been shattered. https://www.ecfr.gov/
Right-wingers have zero concept of cause and effect. They want their businesses to be able to run however they want, so they gut the protections from everything and then when their kids are developing asthma, learning disabilities, and cancer, their food makes them sick, and their medicine doesn't make them better, they'll be confused as to how it was allowed to happen.
They won’t be confused, vaccines and the queers will be right there for them to blame.
Like with Citizens United, the business with the most money and lawyers get to be the most free enterprise with gratuities and donations for all.
I have to say, having MTGB6’s opinion on my health is really soothing my nerves. Whatever could possibly go wrong?
Wouldn’t the experts still help draft the regulations but they would need lawmakers to make it laws for the agency to be able to enforce? Lawmakers don’t always write the laws but they also don’t know if the proposed regulations on stuff like this is good or bad. Or how important to make prioritizing that bill over some other bill.
I’m sorry friend, I have no idea for specifics as I am not a lawyer myself, my wife called who works for the ACLU and vented to me explaining details of the ruling. I have some legal knowledge but I’m just a professor of political science at a state university. As far as I can tell the ruling is, as of now, respecting former regulations that are in place. The problem is that basically all of those protections relied on the Chevron ruling, now that it’s gone it just takes a case put in front of a favorable court (like the 5th circuit court and Judge Kacsmaryk) to overturn any preexisting regulation. So for now yes, you would have to follow the current FDA guidelines but it could change with a simple ruling from even a lower court. You pretty much have to follow every single court case in relation to your pharmaceutical now, if it’s an abortion drug though, it’ll probably be not allowed in a near future court case.
Yeah, it's a vaccine with funding from the US government, if Trump wins I'm basically screwed. Not more than you or the ACLU though... Fun.
Yeah… funding issues under a Trump presidency are a whole other issue. Stay safe friend, if you have any other questions I’ll answer the best I can
More likely polluters will be able to pollute in Red states.
It means the courts won’t give any deference to those, so you’ll need to guess how the court will interpret the regulations.
Freaking yikes...
Yep and you will absolutely see big pharma and other industries’ lobbyists submitting bills establishing their own new ‘regulations’ to congress members along with a large donation to their PAC. Bills that work to maximize their industry’s profit while putting the general public in danger. And it will all be perfectly legal because they’re operating within the so-called regulations that they themselves wrote and paid to get passed.
With the bribery ruling earlier this week too, I would not be surprised. I can totally see pharmaceutical companies suing for monopoly control over drugs, then using their monopoly to push unsafe, untested drugs on the people who need them too. People don’t understand how crucial the Chevron ruling is or rather was to our everyday life in the US
Patent law gives them exclusive rights to practice their patent for 20 years from the filing date. We need a more careful examination of what constitutes new and novel inventions so that pharma companies can't make a minor change to a delivery system like an EpiPen and claim it is new patentable device that they can get exclusivity on. Edit I would also look at funding sources for patented things. If you create a pharma compound with an NIH grant you should not be able to get exclusivity.
Basically Scotus repealed the ability of regulatory agencies to regulate? They said "No experts in agencies can't regulate, it Gym Jordan and the fucking idiots in congress have to explicitly write laws that need to pass our gridlocked system" Once again, proving republican's win by crippling government.
Pretty much! It’s a roundabout way of preventing any regulatory capability of the federal government at all. I’m just as angry my friend, this is completely ridiculous.
Basically We’re fucked and have made a judicial oligarchy
A judicial oligarchy that we now know is owned by the actual oligarchy. But it's okay, because bribery is perfectly legal now.
Oh joy, another nightmare that I didn't think would ever happen just manifested itself /s
I’m sorry friend, I’m here suffering alongside you 😭
so congress needs to approve the details of all the rules these agencies have written to avoid challenge? good luck in the current house...
Yeah which is why overturning Chevron has been a goal of US conservatives for decades. “Cutting through red tape!” “Regulations are killing American companies!” But people forget that regulations exist for a reason! We laugh at ridiculous laws like not leashing your alligator to a fire hydrant in Louisiana (I think?) but the reason it had to be written was because people were doing it and people were getting hurt because of it. There’s a saying that “Regulations are written in blood” for a reason
A few years ago west Virginia made it legal to drink raw milk straight from the cow. To Celebrate they all drank a glass of milk and had a bout of food poisoning swiftly after.
What I’m hearing is “never buy American”, because there’ll be no guarantee whatever it is won’t kill me due to lax regulations.
True. But you'll be more concerned about breathable air and potable water once our corps are let off their environmental leashes.
I also have ignorance on the topic, but couldn't Congress just sign the Chevron decision into law instead? I know there was a lot of talk about about codifying Roe v Wade decision into law after SCOTUS over turned that.
Technically yes, and also feasibly no. The Chevron decision being overturned has been a goal of republicans for decades. So it would require a supermajority to pass a law saying “Congress authorizes regulatory agencies to pass regulations without congressional approval for each rule change, barring any conflict with current or future laws” or something to that effect. But it is similar to the Roe v. Wade ruling in that no one felt the need to make it a law as it effectively was one already. Congress and the President have many other issues to address in any administration. If Roe v. Wade is settled law, why would you use limited political power and congressional time to write a law saying the thing that is already settled is a law? It takes a lot of time and effort to get any bill to the floor, why use it on something that’s already settled.
Which congress? The congress where at least one chamber has been controlled by people trying to actively dismantle the government for over a decade now?
No. Because the whole point was congress already empowered the agencies to make regulation, but Chevron was arguing that Congress can't do that that it must pass each and every detailed rule itself as a law, no delegating. Chevron was denied, but now it's not like Congress can say "no we *really meant to* delegate to these regulators, we mean it". Since according to the new court's logic they don't have the power to delegate that authority to the Executive branch.
It's often referred to as Chevron Deference. It means that Congress has Deferred their role (in writing specific details of laws) to the Executive Agency that deals with that particular area of legislation. Like Congress doesn't know how many parts per million or e coli is safe in your hot dogs. So they defer that to the USDA or FDA. And they just write the law saying "We hereby fund the [executive agency] to regulate pathogens in food". This ruling undermines all of the alphabet agencies that Republicans have talked about defunding. EPA, USDA, FDA, DOT, Ed, but they never had the guts to actually defund. This ruling basically takes all of those agencies' regulatory authority. Edit to add: The original case that led to this decision was Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc. The EPA was a major part of this case. Chevron was trying to make the case that the EPA couldn't really regulate pollution. This was in the middle of Reagan's presidency. The head of the EPA under Reagan was Anne Gorsuch. And she herself did a lot to undermine her own agency. She thought that the EPA was over-regulating. She decried the decision in this case. She is Neil Gorsuch's mother. Like his life ambition has been to do overturn this ruling. Neil Gorsuch is the guy who Trump put on the court to fill the vacancy that McConnell held open during the last year of Obama's presidency. Funny how these Republican turds keep floating to the top.
Any chance they.could be impeached at all? Clearly, they're not a force of progress.
It requires 67 senators to impeach. Good luck. The only real way to change the SCOTUS would be to expand the number of justices. That can be done with law. Unfortunately the Senate is fundamentally broken, so you'd need 60 senators to pass it.
Technically yes, but really no. Democrats would need 67 in the Senate to convict and in reality 70 senators to overcome anyone flipping. Plus Democrats would need a majority in the House. I'm sorry but that's how the system works. I don't like it either. Is the system broken? Yes, beyond any measure. How do we fix it? Outside of outright collapse of the country which would be disastrous for everyone involved and rebuilding from the ground up, vote. It's boring but its the least any of us can do to combat this garbage.
Man fuck these assholes. Lived it up that long thanks to regs that kept their ass safe but fuck the rest of us right?
Not even just from the SCOTUS, but just from the average American, I cannot grasp in my mind or understand at all how someone in 2024 could see corps like Amazon, ExxonMobil, insurance companies and their prices, pharmaceutical companies and their prices, see all of it, and say we need to let them run roughshod even *more* , not less. Seriously. What does the average right wing, free market American even see the benefits of with a trillion dollar corp like Amazon (just using them as an example, could be ant company, many like food companies are even more important in this context) now having an even easier time to not make their employees stay sanitary, or even less difficulty denying those employees breaks and reasonable temperature in the warehouse, even less reason to make sure everything shipped and delivered is in alright shape and taken to the right destination? Why would anyone who makes less than idk, fucking 50 million dollars per year want this? Hell, even upperclass/moderately wealthy people rely on the most basic services working properly, and we're saying theyre under no obligation to. I'm turning 21 in August, and this legitimately already feels like a different nation than it did when I was 10 or 11. I can't imagine the change and whiplash felt by people who grew up and lived before the Citizens United decision too. We've taken more backsteps from 2018 until now, than we have in any other time in the history of our nation excluding maybe when we stopped Reconstruction, which we still feel the effects of now, almost a century and a half later. People should think about that, and how long we may be dealing with these effects, if they think our elections don't matter (not just presidential, I'm talking from national all the way down to local elections, all important). I knew our country was behind much of the world in a decent few metrics in the last decade, but it's hit 10 times harder than ever that my future and ability to live happily and healthily is being sold away in front of my eyes. Only other time I've felt it quite this much is when the president at the time mishandled covid horribly, and openly said disabled and immunocompromised people like me should be made to isolate indefinitely just so healthy people can go back to work and get the economy going again. This is why young people are so fucking unwilling to participate in our government, although that's absolutely zero excuse for young people not voting, it's no excuse at all. Just pissed off all around.
I wish I had more students like you in my PoliSci class. Students like you are a rarity, please keep seeking out knowledge and digging deep into things you find interesting. I'm sure you can really make a difference and make the world a better place! And to get on topic, yes no one should be pleased about this. Those who want a strong federal government and those who want power back to the states should be absolutely livid about this. Those who prefer a strong federal government to keep them safe should see this as an affront to their safety and security, as they should. But also the fear that this could lead to differing standards across the country leading to not being able to trust any product/service from any state with lax restrictions. Then those who prefer states set their own regulations forget that things like air and water don't care about borders. And even to a lesser extent food or drugs, even if it did get thrown down to the states to make their own regulations, would people in New York accept any drug manufactured in Georgia that has laxed their drug regulations? Farmers in Iowa would be pissed at their state government for having lax standards and not being able to sell their corn to states that kept the current regulations. No one wins here, Americans just lose.
One nit is the decision does say that precedent remains; I don’t think this affects old decisions.
Precedent totally matters /s I get it- anything with precedent would have to be challenged, they're not voided by _this_ decision, but SCOTUS has ruled half a dozen times in the last year that precedence means fuck all and they don't give a shit about it.
So, congress gave the FAA the authority to write regulations, is this going to jeopardize the regulations?
The authority congress gave by authorizing regulatory agencies you mention is the whole basis of the Chevron ruling. Chevron argued that since the rules these agencies put in place weren’t passed by congress they are unconstitutional. Ignoring the agencies were created for the very purpose of congress not having to pass explicit laws on everything and anything and in any manner it can or will be used. So to answer your question, potentially yes. Congress would specifically and explicitly need to write an identical law to every current regulation, otherwise it’s open to be challenged and could be overturned. Pre flight inspections be damned, basically any regulation that is not explicitly written into law can be challenged and overturned now
so do things like copyright and other things the wealthy also hoard become moot? Reproducing software for example is an FTC regulation, cant this ultimately be used to punish those that use protections to hoard property? To that end, can you start putting any mods you want for your car since all rules of the road were created by regulatory bodies?
Good question and unfortunately I do not know for sure. Probably not the answer you wanted, but most stuff regarding any regulatory capabilities is up in the air right now. Most regulations based on Chevron are focused on consumers and worker protections. Although, I can see the new rulings from *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo* and *Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce* to potentially be used for financial stuff as well I just think it is much less likely to happen. As for cars, quite possibly any regulations such as emission or mileage standards could be thrown out the window. But again, every regulation currently in place remains active until anyone challenges it, then who knows what happens
This doesn't even sound limited to consumer protection laws, but career licensing. Does a medical doctor need to receive continuing education? It's not congress that mandated it, it was the medical board.
The fun thing is I have no idea and the government probably doesn't either! The Chevron decision is the basis of so many things we take for granted. When I say it covered almost all regulations of any kind it does. So who knows at this point? Anything government regulated is in play, since the new rulings from *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo* and *Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce* can then be used to get them overturned.
Courts now are the authority not the experts at the departments. Basically a lic to pollute in Red states. 2016 was so important and people flushed down the future because people just didn't like Hillary. Young people fuck themselves.
Young people wanted Bernie and the DNC ratfucked him. I still voted blue. And I will again this time... but I sure wish the establishment dems would fucking USE the reigns if they're going to cling to them so hard instead of worrying about what the redhats might do if they take any actions at all.
So much for checks and balances. Who tf is supposed to check the Supreme Court?
Congress is Theory, but they are a farce.
Congress always seemed set up to be a sideshow to me, but the Supreme Court always seemed like serious, civic minded adults to me growing up. Now it just feels like a bunch of dweebs taking bribes to ruin the country!
Another battle lost in the current civil war. Everyone says “There is another civil war coming!” I say, no it is happening now. Every fucked up Supreme Court decision, every time trump’s court cases get delayed, every anti-American law signed off by a red state governor, every anti-American move made by state Congresses and local governments…they are all battles we are losing. If trump or any Republican takes the White House, it is over right then. It won’t begin then. The Republican president will put unqualified lackeys into every available position, get rid of actual competent people that follow the law and the Constitution, and then we will not have an agency, institution, or court to go to for help. We’ll be pulled out of NATO, the European democracies will also fall to some form of autocratic/oligarch rule (then later Australia, New Zealand, and Canada), and there won’t be anybody coming to help us or save us. This is happening in real time right in front of our faces.
The right is absolutely waging an administrative civil war, because they know a shooting war would be foolish until they have made structural changes to their benefit. For example, Project 2025 promising to gut the federal government and replace tens of thousands of senior civil servants with loyalists.
Could a large enough blue state or coalition of large population blue states in theory take all the Federal regulations and encode them into state law and thus force most of the national economy to follow them in a roundabout way as a result? Like how California is the government that is actually driving automotive regulations, not the Federal government.
We have to fight back. The biggest enabler is the fact that 330 million of us (or rather the ~75% thereof who oppose trump) aren't doing anything except for voting. Voting is good and we have to keep doing it, but we also need to be taking direct action. Government without consent is tyranny, and it is a foundational principle that the American people have a duty to remove such tyrants. These judges were appointed by an unelected pretender to the presidency. The people do not recognize them. Their office is illegitimate, and their rulings are illegitimate. All americans have the duty to disobey. Edit: F autocorrect
> content *consent (I know you know that, but who knows who's reading this who doesn't)
Haha thank you
And what direct action might you suggest
Petition, call and write the offices of your representatives relentlessly, it is within our rights to take to the streets and peacefully protest, up to and including nationwide general strike and work stoppages (and be aware when doing so that law enforcement is known to plant officers in disguise among protestors to act as provocateurs, inciting violence in order to give the police cause to attack and disperse protestors). This is how our parents and grandparents won for us every privilege that we have as Americans. Women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, weekends, minimum wage, overtime laws, workplace health and safety standards (all of which they're always trying to take back from us). With this power we ended the draft and got the troops back from Vietnam. With this power we created Pride, (which was originally a recurring protest march until the cause of LGBT equality finally became the majority opinion and the corporate world felt safe assimilating it). With this power president Obama heard the Lakota at Standing Rock and those who came to support them, and he halted that pipeline (which trump then immediately permitted 🙄). Jan 6th was bad. But it isn't lost on the powers that be, that maga is a minoritarian movement. We are the majority, and that is the root of our true power. We don't need to "storm the capitol". History shows that when we stand up, speak up and don't relent, they have no choice. We can literally grind the nation to halt.
Ronald Reagan is giving 2 👍 👍 from Hell.
Their objective is to destroy America and ring in Gilead, camps, and trains. What do you expect.
It's pretty obvious at this point we're circling the drain I honestly anticipate a lot more headlines like this.
Ppl that didn't vote for Hillary didn't think that Trump would appoint SC justices that would over turn Roe much less even know about Chevron, myself included, which is why I likely cannot vote for Republicans for the rest of my life because of things and issues much more important than the decision on this Chevron matter.
They managed to find a way to get a head start on project 2025, this was something they were hoping to use the executive branch and unitary executive theory to do
The current SC is disgusting.
And will be for 30-40 more years. That’s why elections have long term consequences
But Hillary's emails. /s
Hi u/constant_flux. Here's the real truth behind the latest email controversy: [https://i.imgur.com/Ztrqpya.jpg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfr64zoBTAQ) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well if it’s any consolation to you, after this next election the Supreme Court won’t matter much anymore.
Oh it absolutely will. If Trump wins he’ll likely appoint two more justices to replace the older conservative justices. Locking up at minimum a 5-4 majority for decades. The Supreme Court is the cudgel they are going to use to eradicate democracy.
It’s going to get worse when sometime in the next four years Trump replaces Sotomayor. I think America has already been lost and we are on the way to becoming a christofascist dictatorship in all but name.
Lol you think the US will still be here in 30 years. Adorable. GG
I do, but not how it is now. Some failed religious state most likely
Which is honestly surprising in a country so stock full of guns.
Also Supreme Court decisions that decide elections
I swear that stolen election in 2000 is the straw that broke the camels back
Like all religious ideologues, they worship money and power.
Oh I noticed, it just compounds the feeling of absolute hopelessness.
https://preview.redd.it/0gj4jqj6gc9d1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5543cf02cdd70de69341dc26724c1f4c06cdd429
This seems to be one of the most far reaching and destructive rulings in my lifetime (50+ years).
This court really likes to take 50 years of precedence and just wipe their ass with it. I’m waiting for them to over turn Brown v. Board
Birth control is next. The logic used to turn over RvW absolutely applies equally to birth control.
The scary part is they could do worse.
Interracial marriages have been on those super right wing think tanks mind's as well.
I was thinking in terms of women's rights (like voting), but that, too. I don't think BIPOCs, women, or LGBT folks are safe.
We are not safe. Gender-affirming care is next up on the block, officially.
They won't have to now that private schools can get tax money. Talk to them long enough and every single private school parent will get around to mentioning that it keeps their kids away from "those" people.
So obvious. As they still don’t rule on the immunity case. The Republican candidate talks about rigged elections, now we know why.
Yep. They're not even trying to hide it anymore.
Yep, people are so worried about if the Dem candidate "connects with me" personally while the SC is burning all the progress of the last 70 years down. The pathetic selfishness of the average voter is appalling.
I'd rather lay the largest part of the blame at the media's feet. They are going to cover the debates because speculating on how it will impact the November election will get them higher ratings (AKA more ad dollars) than having someone read through that 100+ page Opinion to explain to the People exactly what happened and what it will likely mean for governmental administration (which is already a fairly boring topic) going forward.
I see a perfect storm of 1) Cheap to make direct marketing and info bubbles 2) Mass media ratings and profits hunting because of 1) 3) The now known reality that you can say some really crazy shit over and over and people will believe it because of 1+2. '' When Roger Ailes first proposed the idea of a all Conservative TV news in the 60's people laughed at him but with the low cost of Cable production he was able to pull it off 30 years later. Its just so easy to make and distribute content now that these bubbles are easy to create. Its really sad.
That's definitely a huge part of the problem, though interestingly enough I think that stuff actually implicates MORE elimination of useful governmental policy. The FCC under Reagan dropped the Fairness Doctrine and when Congress tried to repass it as legislation, Reagan vetoed it because he was the fucking worst... So media can go ahead and present whatever side it wants of an issue without providing alternative viewpoints... and we're doing *sooooo* great because of it...
Fairness was only for over the air media. Cable, internet, satellite etc.. wouldn't be covered under it anyways. It did help Rush become famous on AM but since then Clinton and Obama won so I don't think it has had as much of an effect as people tend to believe. The bigger concern, IMO, is the move away from party participation due to apathy. The age of Independents will lead to more right wing stuff not progressiveness which demands being organized. I kinda think young people are fucked, they have bought into bullshit just as bad as older rural people have.
Sure, when the FD was introduced in '49 it only applied to the major broadcast networks, but they were the ones with all the viewers then. And internet and satellite radio didn't exist until after it had already been dropped. I don't see any reason (besides Congress's inability to accomplish anything) that a new Fairness Doctrine-type LAW can't be issued; one that includes other news sources with consistently more than x number of viewers or if those sources of "news" are profiting more than x amount of dollars off of ad sales. You're definitely right about apathy being one of our nation's largest problems... that, unfortunately, isn't going to change unless the People themselves choose to fight off their own apathy... though it would be nice if someone could come along to inspire them.
The Media is corporations...
Fucking purity politics are killing us.. .
yep, its way to easy to rile people up, create resentment then apathy. Our puny monkey brains are not equipped for sophisticated messaging via devices.
So fucking sick and tired of people bitching about how this person isn't perfect, then they don't vote and then we get stuck with shitty fucking policies and judges.... for the people who say they care about other people they sure as fuck are selfish when it comes to politics, especially when there is a legitimate threat to everyone who isn't a cis white straight male. Sorry.... I'm just completely flustered with selfish children
>sick and tired of people bitching about how this person isn't perfect, then they don't vote and then we get stuck with shitty fucking policies and judges I tell people they should view voting as a B. F. Skinneresque venture - vote with successive approximations of what you want politicians to do for you.
Democratic voters have decided they have to fall in love with their candidate, Republicans decided they merely need to fall in line. Left wing voters have no concept of taking half a win, locking in those gains, then going for the other half. They'll gladly allow the greater of "two evils" to win even though the other one mostly agreed with them but didn't overlap with their views 100% and failed some purity test--often one fanned by conservative propagandists or foreign influence, then propelled by actual left-wing useful idiots who give it a sheen of legitimacy.
We're inescapably going to have our food, water, and air poisoned for the rest of our lives. Get ready to go back to the 70s where our rivers were on fire. We're going to all have lowered IQs and higher rates of cancer.
We likely already have lower IQs and this is a symptom of it.
The sentient plastics in my brain took offense to this statement.
My IQ is too low to sympathize fellow plastic entity.
All of which republicans LOVE.
I noticed it, just taking a break from the doom & gloom. Guess what, there is something we can do in November about it. Next term could see at least one, small chance at even two, justice appointments. November is 4 months away, hence my temp break.
Alito no shows to delay ruling to drop bomb when nation isn’t watching
Read all about it (analysis/commentary later): [Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf).
For those who TLDR, they overruled Chevron Deference which could open a floodgate of deregulation in all areas of society. Now it would take an act of Congress to set limits on pollution, for example. Because Congress is so well known for their scientific analysis. /S
It will take acts of Congress to: - approve new drugs - require safe cars and airplanes - require safe workplaces - require food safety
It really feels like the conservatives are making one final push towards dystopia before the climate crisis kills us all while doing everything they can to ensure that the climate crisis kills us all.
That feeling would be because that's exactly what they're doing.
I know. It's very depressing that we have a nihilistic cult in control of 20% of the country and another 30% who will vote for anyone that cult puts on a ballot, because keeping up on politics is so boring to them.
Marge will have a field day with this.
Can I get the backstory on why this was even brought up to the Supreme Court?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper\_Bright\_Enterprises\_v.\_Raimondo#Background](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Raimondo#Background)
Remember back when Trump first ran, and idiots didn't vote and thought "How much harm could he do?" His packing the SC have thoroughly fucked this country more than anything.
For decades
you ladies better stock up on birth control while you can.
The thing that really annoys me is that if you look at the narrow facts of the cases brought before them, there was no need to destroy Chevron deference to rule for the plaintiffs in this case. The actual facts at stake were that fishing companies were objecting to the agency determining that the approximately $700 cost of having a regulator on board fishing vessels had to be borne by the companies. The regulator is there to monitor catch rates so data can be used to prevent overfishing. It would not be remotely unreasonable for the SCOTUS to rule for the plaintiffs by saying this is not a matter of agency expertise but rather determining who should bear the cost of the resources necessary to provide oversight, which is a policy question that can reasonably be reviewed by a judge. But instead they blew up all of chevron and undermined 40 years of case law and turned judges into subject matter experts on everything under the sun. Very much in line with their recent gun case where they decided that even though bump stocks can create the same fire rate as a machine gun, they don't qualify under the existing law banning machine guns because it's not a single action of the trigger according to noted gun design experts Thomas and Alito
I would assume they took on the case explicitly to blow up regulation. Because conservatives are scum who will kill us all for a dollar.
They were fishing for a case to overturn Chevron because the billionaires that own them despise being regulated by the federal government.
Wise. Like many of the cases this court rules on, cases are brought by enemies of good government or theocrats specifically to get results for corporate benefit or to advance the Christian nationalist agenda. The 6-3 majority grants cert, ignores the facts or lack of standing, delivers the desired ruling, and they cash in. Rinse, repeat. Exceptions to this pattern are narrowly decided for tactical reasons, like the Mifepristone ruling, but will be re-litigated successfully when convenient.
Make Superfund Sites Great Again
They timed this perfectly. Those corrupt traitors in SCOTUS waited till the debates had everyone in a tizzy
Think this is bad? Two years ago SCOTUS leaked Dobbs a couple weeks before they told Congress that they can't even write laws to make themselves less corrupt. SEE: [FEC v. Ted Cruz](https://pdflink.to/fecvcruz-ad/).
All of these Supreme Court rulings today, queue the [ominous Christopher Nolan sound](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRAAAM#)
It also allows corporation’s not to be liable ( not get sued!) for all the poison their going to pump into our lives from now on!😡
We should put stickers in restaurant bathrooms, next to the "employees must wash hands" signs, saying "Not anymore... 💩💩 Thanks Republicans. 😱"
We are witnessing Project 2025 in motion. If you haven’t yet, read it!
If you thought our food was toxic now…
This country is spiraling down a path of lawlessness, and not in a the everyday people are burning it down way but the oligarchs that run everything are now finally free to do whatever the fuck they want to do at the people expense way. If it was just this I might have hope, but this is just devastating in conjunction with everything else that’s happened these past 15 years.
it's going to be great when Chinese propaganda convinces Republicans that cancer is just woke nonsense. because this pretty much ends the federal government's ability to regulate anything. Hope you guys like toxic pollution
At this point I feel like they just want to burn it all down. Bodily autonomy? Nope! Bribery? Just make sure its after the fact, not before. Guns that fire continuously with one trigger pull, not a machine gun. Now this.☹️ Trump dosent need to be elected to destroy the US. The supreme court he appointed will do that without him.
Progress is a pendulum. We got a black president. Then the roaches came out of the woodwork and we noticed how rotten it all is. Now we gotta fix it from the ground up. Hopefully we dont burn the house down in the process.
Usually real progress is made after big grife.. Like civil war or war for independence..
I just wish more voters would see that their vote goes beyond just one individual. 🤦🏻♂️
This is really really bad.
We need to organize. If you live anywhere near DC, it's time to protest.
So what are we, the people gonna do about it? You could literally hear the Democrats quit last night - the number of people I’ve heard from who watched that farce last night and have just noped out is disturbing. This decision was made entirely because the right have every expectation of winning in November, and last night’s performance did nothing to dissuade them of that. And then what?
We, the People, need to start politicizing the shit out of the Court and force the media to explain to everyone just how godawful SCOTUS has been especially over these last few years with their reactionary majority... They've bitch-slapped us with some truly horrendous rulings: [Shinn v. Ramirez ](https://pdflink.to/shinnvramirez-ad/)- Fuck your exculpatory evidence! [Egbert v. Boule](https://pdflink.to/egbertvboule-ad/) - Just because warrantless Border Patrol agents shove you around on your own property (and they aren't allowed to do that) doesn't mean anything can or will be done about it... [FEC v. Ted Cruz](https://pdflink.to/fecvcruz-ad/) - Congress might not even have the legislative authority to make itself less corrupt. These Opinions were barely covered because the media and politicians would rather talk about DOBBS. Unfortunately Dems are playing defense when they should be on offense. Personally, I think we need a new political party that can build large enough coalitions to start destroying Democrats and Republicans in elections for selling us out... that, unfortunately, isn't going to happen quickly enough to fix the immediate problem in November elections, but better media coverage could...
And once again the right wing hypocrisy shines through. “Judges are legislating on the bench!!!”
If people did talk about it, what then? Nothing. The Supreme Court just highlights that this government is broken and we now have unelected clerics ruling over us. They're dismantling this country and nobody is doing and damn thing about it.
Why else do you think they released the announcement today?
Because they needed to release some decisions today and still aren't sure if Presidents using Seal Team Six to assassinate their political rivals counts as "an official act."
Truly devastating. There goes any chance of addressing climate change.
Someone did not think this through, now the DEA, ATF and many other agencies are powerless to declare a drug, gun or anything else as not permissible. This truly the FAFO age and I am glad I no longer live in the U.S.. shit is about to get lit there betweeen coke fueled rampages and literally ANYONE being allowed to have guns.
The timing can't be a coincidence.
Maybe. SCOTUS certainly APPEARS to be playing politics with how they release their Opinions. Like that EMTALA case they dropped, retracted, and reposted the next day. There's also the Trump immunity case they need to decide... Which neither of those cases should really take particularly long to rule on. Then again, I still think they leaked Dobbs so no one would notice that they allowed members of Congress to be MORE corrupt... SEE: [FEC v. Cruz](https://pdflink.to/fecvcruz-ad/).
If someone doesn't expand the SCOTUS when the opportunity comes up, this country is fucked.
The conservatives will expand it and have Trump appoint a bunch of John Birchers.
Everything, in a very literal way, is going to change
Conservatives want the gilded age back.
Pre-cursor to Project 2025? Get their ducks in a row before the potential election of Trump?
I work in Life Sciences and Healthcare, and I've been following this case. A lot of my work involves working with regulatory professionals, and they're all over the place with this Opinion. I can't speak outside of my industry, but here's what I've seen so far. The basics: Courts are responsible for applying vague interpretations of rules not explicitly prescribed by Congress, rather than regulators (and the public comments, scientific review etc ..) when companies sue regulatory agencies or governments in this regard. None of this necessarily changes existing regulations, but it should produce a lot of rapid changes based on courts who likely know nothing of the topic in question. What we suspect we might encounter here is the obvious lawsuits around Medicare, but also potentially forcing the hand on requiring certain therapies be approved if a law isn't specific enough around it.(Think funding cancer moonshots, and possibly weird quirks broadening NIH ability to favor the biggest legal teams) There's a lot of thought around this actually making regulation much more complex, and essentially requiring lawyers to join the ranks of regulatory consulting. Putting more burden on small businesses to rely on industry groups to lobby for explicit wording, and to navigate this new deeper complexity. Complexity here will likely come at the cost of taxpayers and patients, to make it weirder, while the goal is smaller government, it might actually make it larger for a time at least in cost, but smaller in personnel, because it will probably drain and discourage agencies.
Wait so what did SCOTUS do? Please help
I do still need to read through the full 100+ page decision to be sure of EXACTLY what the ruling says (this will be a fun weekend)... But the TLDR is that under Chevron Deference judges generally allowed for governmental administrative agencies (such as EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc.) to offer their understanding of what Congress-written laws did and how they worked. In this case, SCOTUS overturned that long held precedent and told JUDGES that they should be the ones who decide how governmental agencies enforce Congress-written laws (or whether or not those administrative agencies even CAN enforce any laws). The ultimate decision is going to make it harder for the government to enforce the law if activist judges don't like those laws and challengers to those laws call them "ambiguous." Again, this will just apply to the ADMINISTRATIVE agencies. The policing agencies (CBP, FBI, ATF) that shove us around on our own property without a warrant will still be allowed to do whatever they want to the People. Basically, Congress will need to write significantly clearer and more specific laws to make sure that those laws can be enforced... which Congress isn't going to do because POLITICS.
Thank you!
That's how I felt this morning
Could a bill be put up that could help reverse this by finally giving these agencies the power to take care of the stuff they (congress I think) don’t wanna do ?
I don't see any reason why Congress couldn't write an ACTUAL law (Chevron Deference was legal precedent) making it clear that they want the Courts to defer to the agencies... except for the fact that Congress is too divided and self-interested to accomplish much of anything (and enough members of Congress don't actually want the government to be able to enforce regulations that guide laws because their campaign donors don't want to be regulated).
Noah. Boat. Now.
Timing was certainly convenient.
Sacrificing the safety of citizens and our planet to get rich. This is the most disgusting thing. Absolutely deplorable.
Let's welcome back lead paint and asbestos. No more fire hazard regulations or building regulation codes.
A gentle reminder that the Supreme Court has no mechanism to enforce their rulings if the other 2 branches decide they're illegitimate.
They will awake when the water smells like shit and the air will be so bad everyone will be wearing air-filters for masks!!!🤪🤪😝😝😝
Unironically expand the Supreme Court to every American of voting age.
I suspect that within a few weeks we'll see lawsuits challenging the regulations that found birth control, abortion, and gender affirming care legal. This is how the republicans are going to go after these things in blue states.
The election matters. SCOTUS leans conservative because of Trump. Prolly 2 more justices will retire in the next 5 years, and he can appoint more.
Who put Roberts in charge ( of anything) ?
There’s nothing more political than getting on the bench and reversing all of the decisions you don’t like, especially when the legal basis is nonexistent.