4 ms·

Good lord. No. Maybe a closer reading of "legacy media" would have served you better than whatever you ended up turning to. There were two CDC moratoriums that

Good lord. No. Maybe a closer reading of "legacy media" would have served you better than whatever you ended up turning to. There were two CDC moratoriums that made it to SCOTUS. The first was upheld by SCOTUS, the second was struck down. Neither was upheld nor struck down on Constitutional grounds. You should also read the Loper Bright decision more closely. Chevron was struck down due to conflict with the Administrative Procedures Act, not the Constitution. The do not say anywhere that Congress cannot (Constitutionally) delegate such authority to the regulatory agencies. They say that Congress did not do such in a way that reconciles its conflict with the APA.

somenameforme 2y ago
You're rather leaving out the fact that the first was upheld for pragmatic, not legal reasons. Kavanaugh, who cast the deciding vote in favor of the CDC, stated that the CDC had clearly overstepped their bounds, but as the moratorium was set to imminently expire, and the ruling could cause imminent disorder, chose to pragmatically, rather than legally, uphold it. The CDC then shrugged and decided to try to do something similar again after it expired, and summarily lost. The legacy media framed this with quotes such as "A group of right wing extremists just decided to throw families out of their homes during a global pandemic." Yeah, real informative... The quote I gave regarding the unconstitutionality of Chevon deference was from the Supreme Court opinion. It was both unconstitutional and contradicted previous legalese and precedent. It was a loser on every account.
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  Yeah, I'm not arguing the propriety of it. I'm arguing that you're not even reading the decisions. It is demonstrably untrue that district courts couldn't review agencies' interpretations of statues, as you've argued several times now. Again: read more closely. Nowhere does Loper Bright say there was any conflict with the Constitution. Merely citing the Constitution in a decision does not mean the ruling is on Constitutional grounds. It says there was a violation of APA. That's the extent of the ruling. You misunderstood what Chevron deference is, now you've misunderstood Loper Bright. Find new sources for your legal analysis!
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    Read more closely? Nowhere does Loper Bright say there was any conflict with the Constitution? A quote (amongst many) literally from the opinion, "I write separately to underscore a more fundamental problem: Chevron deference also violates our Constitution’s separation of powers..." You are acting childish.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      … “I write separately…” As in… a concurrent, distinct opinion from the court’s decision? This is proof of my point, not of yours lol. That is Thomas saying: “the court DID NOT decide this ran afoul of the Constitution. I am writing separately to proclaim my own belief that it does.” You are now misunderstanding how court opinions work.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - somenameforme 1y ago
        sorcerer-mar: "read more closely. Nowhere does Loper Bright say there was any conflict with the Constitution." Loper Bright: "Chevron deference also violates our Constitution’s separation of powers." sorcerer-mar: "This is proof of my point." --- NPC logic in its purest form.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/concurring_opinion https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/concurring_opinion > A concurring opinion is an opinion that agrees with the majority opinion but does not agree with the rationale behind it. Concurring opinions are not binding [emphasis mine] If someone files a concurring opinion that they believe it violates the Constitution, that indicates the majority opinion did not find this. That's why they filed a concurring opinion and didn't join the majority opinion, goofball. You can also read the actual majority opinion to learn, in fact, they do not argue that it's unconstitutional, but even using your shortcut it leads to the opposite of your conclusion. By your logic, the dissenting opinions are also part of the Loper Bright decision, so therefore, Loper Bright says the opposite of what everyone thinks it says: > Put all that together and deference to the agency is the almost obvious choice, based on an implicit congressional delegation of interpretive authority. Wait just a second... it turns out that neither concurring nor dissenting opinions are the actual court's decision and its binding opinion, despite being published all on the same document. Curious ain't it? Thank you for your excellent demonstration of the level of thoughtfulness and general knowledge behind Chevron opposition. I think your alternative media sources have failed you.

somenameforme 2y ago

You're rather leaving out the fact that the first was upheld for pragmatic, not legal reasons. Kavanaugh, who cast the deciding vote in favor of the CDC, stated that the CDC had clearly overstepped their bounds, but as the moratorium was set to imminently expire, and the ruling could cause imminent disorder, chose to pragmatically, rather than legally, uphold it. The CDC then shrugged and decided to try to do something similar again after it expired, and summarily lost. The legacy media framed this with quotes such as "A group of right wing extremists just decided to throw families out of their homes during a global pandemic." Yeah, real informative... The quote I gave regarding the unconstitutionality of Chevon deference was from the Supreme Court opinion. It was both unconstitutional and contradicted previous legalese and precedent. It was a loser on every account.

sorcerer-mar 2y ago
Yeah, I'm not arguing the propriety of it. I'm arguing that you're not even reading the decisions. It is demonstrably untrue that district courts couldn't review agencies' interpretations of statues, as you've argued several times now. Again: read more closely. Nowhere does Loper Bright say there was any conflict with the Constitution. Merely citing the Constitution in a decision does not mean the ruling is on Constitutional grounds. It says there was a violation of APA. That's the extent of the ruling. You misunderstood what Chevron deference is, now you've misunderstood Loper Bright. Find new sources for your legal analysis!
- somenameforme 1y ago
  Read more closely? Nowhere does Loper Bright say there was any conflict with the Constitution? A quote (amongst many) literally from the opinion, "I write separately to underscore a more fundamental problem: Chevron deference also violates our Constitution’s separation of powers..." You are acting childish.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    … “I write separately…” As in… a concurrent, distinct opinion from the court’s decision? This is proof of my point, not of yours lol. That is Thomas saying: “the court DID NOT decide this ran afoul of the Constitution. I am writing separately to proclaim my own belief that it does.” You are now misunderstanding how court opinions work.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      sorcerer-mar: "read more closely. Nowhere does Loper Bright say there was any conflict with the Constitution." Loper Bright: "Chevron deference also violates our Constitution’s separation of powers." sorcerer-mar: "This is proof of my point." --- NPC logic in its purest form.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/concurring_opinion https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/concurring_opinion > A concurring opinion is an opinion that agrees with the majority opinion but does not agree with the rationale behind it. Concurring opinions are not binding [emphasis mine] If someone files a concurring opinion that they believe it violates the Constitution, that indicates the majority opinion did not find this. That's why they filed a concurring opinion and didn't join the majority opinion, goofball. You can also read the actual majority opinion to learn, in fact, they do not argue that it's unconstitutional, but even using your shortcut it leads to the opposite of your conclusion. By your logic, the dissenting opinions are also part of the Loper Bright decision, so therefore, Loper Bright says the opposite of what everyone thinks it says: > Put all that together and deference to the agency is the almost obvious choice, based on an implicit congressional delegation of interpretive authority. Wait just a second... it turns out that neither concurring nor dissenting opinions are the actual court's decision and its binding opinion, despite being published all on the same document. Curious ain't it? Thank you for your excellent demonstration of the level of thoughtfulness and general knowledge behind Chevron opposition. I think your alternative media sources have failed you.