Too generous of an explaination. Just assholes. Lead hasn't done nearly as much harm to developing brains as boomer politics have
They’re living longer. They’ve always been crotchety old bastards but Fox News has turned them into misinformed idiots. As I said last week, the next election will be between and 81 year old and a 78 year old. The Dem Senate leader will be 74 and the GOP Senate leader will be somewhere between 85-150 years old. These people need to go.
Yes, the olds are misinformed. But the end game of that misinformation from Fox News is fear. And they’ve succeeded, as fear drives more dangerous legislative actions than idiocy, hate, or anger imho.
When grandma is scared and grandpa is angry, the GOP will always turn out to vote. Luckily the granddaughters and grandsons are pissed, and they are turning out too.
Worth watching until the end. Let’s raise money to have this lady go to every school board meeting where these idiots are protesting DEI and “CRT.”
Ah yes, I definitely understand the nuanced implications here. But for our less informed posters, could you break this down? I would but I have some videotapes to return.
The Chevron case established a judiciary “deference” to executive administrative agencies to do the thing that they’re supposed to do — create and enforce regulations in their respective scope. Conservatives hate it and want to tear it down in order to neuter the government’s ability to enforce regulations. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
They’re absolutely going to overturn Chevron, it’s one of the cornerstones in “tearing down the administrative state” as Steve Bannon put it.
Ok, Im up to speed now. No, not quite THAT bad....but essentially if there isnt a clear law (which there often isnt) then the agencies cant do shit if this is overturned.
Don't worry, all these petrochemical companies will "promise" that they will continue to not start polluting again and then just quietly not do anything.
Exactly, it’s the same shit they did in the EPA v WV case from a year or two ago. Basically saying that “well theres no law saying I can’t do xyz so therefore the EPA/FDA/etc can’t stop me” and completely ignoring that these executive agencies are created because they can act with more expertise and speed than Congress. The goal is to completely gum up Congress and legislate from the bench to roll back governmental power.
Not exactly, but that would be the end result. The Chevron test applies when there’s an ambiguous or silent term in the underlying statute that the government agency is empowered to administer which needs to be interpreted. Think the EPA and the Clean Air Act. When a statute is ambiguous or is silent as to the ability of the agency to act as it has, then the Chevron test said to defer to the agency’s interpretation of their authority to act so long as it was a reasonable and permissible interpretation of the ambiguous term. Conservatives hate this as they argue courts are improperly deferring to such interpretations and instead should be finding that agencies are acting beyond their delegated authority from Congress. This, they argue, has caused the runaway growth of the administrative state. Of course, the original Chevron case allowed for the EPA under Reagan to change its interpretation of an ambiguous term (new source) of the Clean Air Act that under Carter had been used to require a lengthy permitting process based for building facilities that added to air pollution. The change made it easier. And the head of the EPA under Reagan who changed the definition to make it easier to pollute was none other than Anne Gorsuch, Neil’s mom.
the language is rarely "clear" and the point of deferring to an agency when something is "ambiguous" is because that agency, tasked with regulating whatever area or industry, would have the best knowledge and insight into what it was tasked with regulating and carrying out. this ranges from very small / seemingly insignificant polices to a ton of major policies. It is absolutely a favor to big business to take the teeth out of most regulatory agencies. and if you think "well why don't they make the relevant statutes and regs more clear," that will never happen. It is impossible to right statutes and bills to cover every issue. the point is to often make them vague and give regulatory power to the executive agencies. this congress (lol) will never work together and in good faith to write proper regulations for the agencies to follow. it'll be chaos and litigation that favors major corporations
What's sad is the media refuses to press them on this, and instead just blindly promote these nazis (yes moms for liberty are nazis) without fail and allow them to spew that poison across the country
Fucking pisses me off to no end. "group against teaching controversial topics to school kids endorses local Klan member to the school board"
This is maybe the single most dumbest political move I have seen in recent memory. Oregon Secretary of State (D), moonlights as a consultant for a weed company that owes that State millions of dollars and has dozens of lawsuits for unpaid bills and wages. The agreement was for $10,000 month and of course people are telling her to resign.
I'm trying to imagine just how pathetic my life would have to be to spend my day doing that. How does one even go on?
Don't worry, the invisible hand will drive companies to be more responsible bc the consumers will demand it!!
Hey guys have you heard about all the SHOPLIFTING AT CVS? I heard a hungry mother even tried to steal MEDICINE