patrick.net

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2024/06/27/supreme-court-reins-in-sec-bureaucrats-in-decision-upholding-constitutional-right-to-jury-trial-n2641036

We seamlessly transitioned from "There is no deep state" to "Go, Team Deep State, go!"

What it means that the government money laundering industry can't just let them off with a huge fine (bigga badda bribe) as in like Obama. They may actually have to go back to criminal prosecutions where they belong, with the proven crime then moved to civil court for damages.

Prison sentences and jail for specific perps, not just money laundering to Guv by another name.

Oh man, the news just keeps getting better and better.

Trump obviously stomped Pedo Potatus in the debate.
Then there is a bit of justice for the political prisoners of J6.
And now this.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-chevron-deference-power-of-federal-agencies/

Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a landmark 40-year-old decision that gave federal agencies broad regulatory power, upending their authority to issue regulations unless Congress has spoken clearly.

The court split along ideological lines in the dispute, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the conservative majority. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson were in dissent. Kagan read portions of her dissent from the bench.

Only leftist women want the nanny state.

Even better was the "City of Grants Pass vs. Johnson" where the Supreme Court just ruled it is not a "right" for any person to sleep on public land.

This previous ruling is what made it so difficult for West Coast cities to clean up their homeless camps because they could not kick out bums unless they proved they had an available bed at a shelter.

Been a great week for sanity!

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/chevron-deference-overturned-by-scotus

Since the 1984 case, the resulting explosive growth of administrative agencies and their budgets, coupled with Chevron-associated legal barriers to administrative accountability, has given rise to a massive, arrogant, parasitic administrative state that has come to believe that its actions and motivations are above reproach or questioning. This doctrine has underpinned the arrogance of Dr. Anthony Fauci and colleagues at NIH so recently on display in congressional hearings for all who wish to see it. This case has enabled the administrative state to grow so large that many agencies have developed their own judiciary. Prosecutors and judges are unique to each agency, with the power to indict and force you to go to trial all within the structure of the agency - basically, each agency creates its own law and then acts as judge, prosecutor, and jury. No separation of powers, just one hand washing the other, all unified collusion. A self-contained, unconstitutional fourth branch of government with each agency operating under the protective legal umbrella of being defined as the ultimate authority in all matters involving legislative - or scientific and technical- interpretations.

I can't repeat this enough:

Sure it is a dry topic devoid of more thrilling content like footage of federal bureaucrats being strung up on gallows all over the DC Mall.

But it is FUCKING IMPORTANT. More so than whoever is POTUS or even what your tax rate is. Seriously.

This is one of the most important SCOTUS decisions in a century. Maybe THE most important.

Asshole Democrat Lawyer-Bureaucrats can't run away in Court with their interpretation of general guidelines

Using those general guidelines to create stringent regulations that simply have to be "reasonable" for any Court to uphold them.

A GREAT DAY. Most Dems don't realize how fucked they are.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/devastating-tuesday-july-2-2024-c

This term delivered a trifecta of swamp-draining decisions. Let’s recap. In Jarkezy, the Court deleted Executive Agencies’ ability to prosecute citizens for crimes; that must now happen in a real court with a real jury. In Loper Bright, the Supreme Court overturned Chevron, stripping Executive Agencies’ right to interpret laws by themselves and restoring that power to the courts.




Yesterday, the Supreme Court quietly published Corner Post v. Federal Reserve, and squared the deep-state-demolishing circle. Corner Post deleted the current 6-year statute of limitations for challenging Executive Agency rules under the Administrative Procedure Act. Now, citizen plaintiffs can challenge long-standing Agency regulations within 6 years of being affected by them.

The Loper Bright decision made it easier to overturn bad Agency decisions going forwards. And Corner Post just opened the door to retroactive challenges to decades-old regulations. It’s a gold rush for new, re-envigorated litigation against the Regulatory State. Virtually everything is now up for grabs. ...

Liberal Justice Jackson, dissenting in Corner Post, also noticed how revolutionary this decision was. Jackson wrote, “At the end of a momentous Term, this much is clear: The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court's holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government.”

They’re going to need a bigger courthouse. Do it! Devastate the functioning of the Federal Government!




... It is difficult to overestimate how much this Supreme Court just historically and permanently altered the landscape of federal government overreach. I’m tempted to invoke again my overused ‘2024’ canard. But actually, I believe this unimaginable improvement in our national prospects was the inevitable result of the Supreme Court observing the government’s wild and painful overreach during the pandemic.

In other words: vaccine mandates.

We’ve longed for a lone decision saying HHS and OSHA can’t just arbitrarily order people to take experimental medical treatments they don’t want. We didn’t get that. But what we did get is arguably and breathtakingly much, much better. The Supreme Court took the long view. They’ve changed everything —including but not only medical freedom— for the better.

We had no right to expect this revolutionary Supreme Court session. What a great day to be alive.

LOL! Make legislation and separation of powers great again.

President Trump still paying off, almost four years after leaving office.

FuckTheMainstreamMedia says

President Trump still paying off, almost four years after leaving office.

This is why this year is so important. Clarence will need to step down soon. He's old. Alito and Roberts are technically old or near end of life with another 4-1/2 years if Trump were to win. 80 and mid 70's between the 3. I know people live longer but my old man died of cancer at 69. Hell think of Steve Jobs. Just because they're SCOTUS justices doesn't mean bodies don't fail.

If Trump wins and can get a trifecta and replace all three with younger Justices that's 20 years of Trump if you think about it. This is why abortion is being pumped so much after the debate. A topic that is generally unimportant but can swing women voters and beta males.

I don't know that Roberts would step down though. I really don't get working till 70-80 if you don't have to. They have golden parachute retirement funds, medical car and insider trading likely. I didn't realize Sotomayor was 70 either.

Trump needs to win, but the RNC should be pumping cash into contested down ballot senate and house seats. Biden ate shit at the debate and I think Trump is a slam dunk at this point.

DemocratsAreTotallyFucked says

I can't repeat this enough:

Sure it is a dry topic devoid of more thrilling content like footage of federal bureaucrats being strung up on gallows all over the DC Mall.

But it is FUCKING IMPORTANT. More so than whoever is POTUS or even what your tax rate is. Seriously.

I also think that the Chevron ruling was way more important than (although less entertaining) watching Sleepy Joe crash and burn (proverbially) in the debate.

https://jpfo.org/articles-2024/scotus-chevron-deference-decision.htm

Q: What is the Chevron Deference doctrine?

A: "By a vote of 6-3, the justices overruled their landmark 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which gave rise to the doctrine known as Chevron Deference. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency's interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable.

What the Chevron Deference doctrine did was when administrative agencies write regulations, they often will have their own administrative courts that interpret the regulations the agency has drawn up. For example, if the EPA makes a regulation that says a factory can only put out so much pollution, and there is a question as to whether a specific factory violated the regulation, the first place the factory has to go is the EPA's administrative court, where an EPA administrative judge will interpret the EPA's regulations. If the factory is unsatisfied with the EPA judge's decision, they can appeal to federal court. What Chevron Deference did was this: If the administrative court's decision was appealed, the federal court was then supposed to be heavily deferential to the findings of that administrative court.

Basically, the doctrine put a thumb on the scale in favor of the administrative agency.

The federal court was supposed to give a lot of deference to what the administrative agency found. From a liberty perspective, this is a separation of powers problem. The administrative agency, as an executive agency, is supposed to enforce the law. It's not supposed to write the law. It's not supposed to interpret the law. These alphabet agencies were writing regulations, which is a legislative function. They were enforcing the regulations, an executive function, and then they were interpreting the regulations, which is a judicial function.

The ATF and the alphabet agencies were doing the jobs of all three branches of government and if challenged, the federal courts were supposed to defer to what their administrative courts found. Even if the federal court thought the agency's administrative court got it wrong, they didn't always overrule the decision. They believed that these agencies were the experts, who were best at administering and interpreting the own regulations. For example, the courts acted like since the EPA found that the EPA did nothing wrong, we'll defer to them since they're the experts."

Q: What specifically did the U.S. Supreme Court decide?

A: "Chevron was overturned formally based on the Administrative Procedures Act, which sets out the procedures that federal agencies must follow as well as instructions for the courts to review actions by those agencies. The Supreme Court decided that this deference was unlawful. The Supreme Court said federal courts should start from scratch, rather than showing deference to the alphabet agencies. The High Court removed their thumb from the scale."