3 ms·

… “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:

… “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.

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.