Ruling just dropped.
Curious how this will effect things & not just the pew pew overreach.
Curious how this will effect things & not just the pew pew overreach.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Army Jerry warned you.I mean if they close, I’ll have to go to Circle K for my energy drinks….and I don’t carry enough rounds on me to make it out of a Circle K…
The left and the deep state are having a coronary as we speak.Ruling just dropped.
Curious how this will effect things & not just the pew pew overreach.
It shouldn't take years (but it will).This will take YEARS of lawsuits and legal challenges to get sorted. All these regulatory agencies are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it
This essentially makes all of atf recent bans and decisions illegal that were not made law by congress. It also stops atf from interpretation of the law and making things not illegal illegal. Requires congress to pass law as it should be.For those that have watched this closely, help me understand something. This is the 3rd ruling like this right? One of the others was against the EPA and they got smacked down hard about a year ago. What is different with this one that everyone is suddenly paying attention?
This essentially makes all of atf recent bans and decisions illegal that were not made law by congress. It also stops atf from interpretation of the law and making things not illegal illegal. Requires congress to pass law as it should be.
The other rulings only dealt with those certain cases like the bump stock, epa and some others. They were about the agencies overstepping Chevron and making up new laws not just interpretation. It only had anything to do with those specific cases while this one affects all cases and all agencies.The question is, how is it different than the other rulings before it? Unless I'm mistaken, chevron deference was already nuked.
In 2022 the SCOTUS ruled against the EPA in a specific case.For those that have watched this closely, help me understand something. This is the 3rd ruling like this right? One of the others was against the EPA and they got smacked down hard about a year ago. What is different with this one that everyone is suddenly paying attention?
I agree with you, for sure. That said it was a case of give them an inch and they will take a mile.Shows how screwed our government is that the SC has to make a decision to say something that is already not allowed is now not allowed. I would think circumventing the legislative branch as all these alphabet agencies have done should be prosecuted and punished....not reviewed and and a decision made to tell them that the illegal things they have done are now illegal just as they were before. Probably just lip service to pacify while staus quo rolls on.
The other rulings only dealt with those certain cases like the bump stock, epa and some others. They were about the agencies overstepping Chevron and making up new laws not just interpretation. It only had anything to do with those specific cases while this one affects all cases and all agencies.
In 2022 the SCOTUS ruled against the EPA in a specific case.
Today they revoked and removed the entire premise that originally allowed so much broad leeway given to any agency.
The entire premise that agencies could interpret stuff how they like was born out of the original Chevron Deference which allowed it to go on.
In the EPA case it was a singular example of what kind of abuse they were talking about. That particular case said the EPA went too far and was overruled, but up until today Chevron was still the rule. The EPA case was a 'how far is too far' situation.
The case today threw out the entire legal basis for anyone ever in any agency coast to coast to ever even bring up the idea that those agencies are entitled to make such decisions. It was basically the total death penalty for that concept.
Would this potentially open the door for those who have been prosecuted based on "because we say so" to have convictions overturned?I agree with you, for sure. That said it was a case of give them an inch and they will take a mile.
For example back in the mid 1980s if something wasn't 100% clear in regards to a particular regulation those agencies were given leeway to connect the dots.
Back when it was originally instituted they were not really going all the way to left field, at least not at first. For example if the law says "you cannot dump toxic chemicals in the river", when it came up in court the defense says, "who gets to define what is toxic?" The answer came back in the form of 'agencies have leeway in matters like this', which is basically what Chevron Deference is.
Over time though those same agencies started making up laws out of thin air and every time it went to court they would say, "we get deference in this matter" and had a legal basis to get what they wanted and win in court.
Flash forward and you have the potato in charge telling agencies to essentially create "new laws" and such and they didn't have to ask anyone (or so they thought). When questioned it would get the response that "it's not a law, it's a regulation and we get the deference to create those"...
That is, until today.
believe soWould this potentially open the door for those who have been prosecuted based on "because we say so" to have convictions overturned?
I would assume so, if that was the actual situation. That said it's all 100% new territory legally speaking.Would this potentially open the door for those who have been prosecuted based on "because we say so" to have convictions overturned?
There were criticisms, but they had not yet overruled it. Chevron was still good law until now.The question is, how is it different than the other rulings before it? Unless I'm mistaken, chevron deference was already nuked.
Oh so bruen 1.1?Probably just lip service to pacify while staus quo rolls on.
You are assuming the law and legality means anything at this point considering what is happening with illegal immigration as an example, it’s outright an invasion and the executive branch who is supposed to support and defend the laws ignore them, and the lawmakers sit idle.I would assume so, if that was the actual situation. That said it's all 100% new territory legally speaking.
I don't know how much of these cases involve criminal law vs say regulatory stuff. I'm sure in some cases it might spill over but who knows. That's beyond my pay grade.
Yeah I'm sure they will get back on that train but as of right now, they have their hands full with pedo joeExpect?
Riots, violence and being called racists and Natzhees.
And then calls for court packing.
I mean… duh!
Sirhr
Would this potentially open the door for those who have been prosecuted based on "because we say so" to have convictions overturned?
Totally patheticTheoretically every J6 hould be released - but you know they will drag it out and require every defendant to go through legal hoops.