3 ms·

>Except the law did contain the provision for this fee. Incorrect. The law has provisions of this kind of fee for other types of fish, it was silent on herring

>Except the law did contain the provision for this fee. Incorrect. The law has provisions of this kind of fee for other types of fish, it was silent on herring which these boats were fishing for. Historically, the government had been funding these monitors until budget cuts made no longer possible. So, agency created a rule that since while law says monitors are required and we can't pay for it, the industry must now pay for it. Industry sued and here we are.

collingreen 2y ago
I don't know anything about the legal side of any of this convo but your "Incorrect" followed up by saying in apparent seriousness that there are laws for fish but not THIS PARTICULAR kind of fish made me actually laugh out loud. Internet comments have the funniest versions of good and bad faith.
- stackskipton 2y ago
  But that's entire debate in the case with SCOTUS and this is a ton of US law. Section A/B/C says these kind of fish boats must be monitored, and fishing boats being monitored will pay for said monitors. Section D says these kinds of fishing boats shall be monitored as well but nothing about who pays for it. You will find US law RIDDLED with these inconsistencies.
39896880 2y ago
This “silent on” meme is clever, but it doesn’t quite work when the entire framework of regulatory law relied on the agencies to adapt to circumstances that everyone knows will change. In fact, your point strengthens that idea: why would anyone with any working knowledge of how regulations work expect the law to need changing to cover every type of fish when the overfishing situation is by definition dynamic? This is the purpose of the “necessary and appropriate” clause. This isn’t even an example text vs. spirit. Congress wrote the law to cover this.
- stackskipton 2y ago
  I don't know what you are even going on about. Necessary and Proper Clause does not say what you think it means. Necessary and Proper Clause in this case says Congress could legislate in this area and they did until budget cuts made it till they couldn't. Then Executive stepped in and said "Industry will pay for it", they sued and here we are. Just like IRS pays for tax auditors. Congress could still step in here and just make it clear "All monitors shall be funded by fee set by Government." and party over. I'm not sure why Congress didn't do that originally with this law.

collingreen 2y ago

I don't know anything about the legal side of any of this convo but your "Incorrect" followed up by saying in apparent seriousness that there are laws for fish but not THIS PARTICULAR kind of fish made me actually laugh out loud. Internet comments have the funniest versions of good and bad faith.

stackskipton 2y ago
But that's entire debate in the case with SCOTUS and this is a ton of US law. Section A/B/C says these kind of fish boats must be monitored, and fishing boats being monitored will pay for said monitors. Section D says these kinds of fishing boats shall be monitored as well but nothing about who pays for it. You will find US law RIDDLED with these inconsistencies.

39896880 2y ago

This “silent on” meme is clever, but it doesn’t quite work when the entire framework of regulatory law relied on the agencies to adapt to circumstances that everyone knows will change. In fact, your point strengthens that idea: why would anyone with any working knowledge of how regulations work expect the law to need changing to cover every type of fish when the overfishing situation is by definition dynamic? This is the purpose of the “necessary and appropriate” clause. This isn’t even an example text vs. spirit. Congress wrote the law to cover this.

stackskipton 2y ago
I don't know what you are even going on about. Necessary and Proper Clause does not say what you think it means. Necessary and Proper Clause in this case says Congress could legislate in this area and they did until budget cuts made it till they couldn't. Then Executive stepped in and said "Industry will pay for it", they sued and here we are. Just like IRS pays for tax auditors. Congress could still step in here and just make it clear "All monitors shall be funded by fee set by Government." and party over. I'm not sure why Congress didn't do that originally with this law.