6 ms·

The NLRB acts as a judge, jury, and rule-making body, but is not supposed to be answerable to any but Congress. I think no matter how you look at the constitut

The NLRB acts as a judge, jury, and rule-making body, but is not supposed to be answerable to any but Congress. I think no matter how you look at the constitution it's seems wild to think Congress can create such an entity that's not answerable to anything but Congress.

krapp 1y ago
Unless the Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from doing a thing, Congress can do that thing. That's how the Constitution works. Or at least prior to the nullification of Chevron, that's how it was supposed to work.
- tick_tock_tick 1y ago
  > Unless the Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from doing a thing, Congress can do that thing. That's how the Constitution works. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The USA constitution is explicitly the opposite unless Congress is allowed to do something it's not allowed to. Chevron has absolutely nothing to do with that.
  - ilovecollies 1y ago
    Chevron has everything to do with that. "the ruling (Chevron) eventually became a target for those seeking to curtail the administrative state, who argued that courts, rather than federal agencies, should say what the law means." The judicial branch ruled to give themselves more power and congress less.
    - tick_tock_tick 1y ago
      > The judicial branch ruled to give themselves more power and congress less. The Chevron ruling being overturned takes power from the Executive effectively making Congress and the Judicial branch stronger.
      - naivenievewhtev 1y ago
        >The Chevron ruling being overturned takes power from the Executive effectively making Congress and the Judicial branch stronger. You honestly can't believe that. I wish you had a modicum of integrity, instead of being so biased and partisan. Biden's only supreme court nomination had a great quote about trump's extreme court and how it makes its own rules. "the [extreme] Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins." Now how does that apply to your stated opinion? When the extreme court finds something it doesn't like it won't let it stand, it will play Calvinball aka "NO FIXED RULES." It doesn't strengthen congress, it consolidates all power into the judicial branch. I know this will get flagged because I didn't fellate you and how dare I criticize your biased and partisan extremist views. This website is like the corporate press, it normalizes extremists and makes them appear normal and sane. Uncle thomas
  - ilovecollies 1y ago
    [dead]
ilovecollies 1y ago
[flagged]
- tick_tock_tick 1y ago
  > If you don't like the laws you can attempt to overthrow the government and suffer little to no repercussions. Why would I need to? While it has taken a long time these gross abuses of power are being slowly corrected.
  - ilovecollies 1y ago
    [dead]
- docdeek 1y ago
  >> Clarence "Uncle" Thomas's There's no need to use the Uncle Tom epithet to criticize the behavior you don't like in a Supreme Court judge.
  - UncleThomas 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - docdeek 1y ago
      You're gonna keep on creating new accounts, huh?
  - fakeracismjudge 1y ago
    [dead]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
daveguy 1y ago
That is completely valid by the constitution. The judiciary is clearly still a check. The judiciary striking this down would mean that Congress has one less check on the executive, which is exactly what Project 2025 wants to install an unaccountable theocracy.
salynchnew 1y ago
Until the VERY recent Chevron ruling, that's how Congress's powers were intepreted. The Necessary and Proper Clause (or Elastic Clause) in the Constitution grants (or granted, I guess) this power. It's wild to think how Republicans used to complain about activist judges, but the current Federalist Society slate has undone at least 100+ years of precedent in the last half dozen.
- mschuster91 1y ago
  > It's wild to think how Republicans used to complain about activist judges, but the current Federalist Society slate has undone at least 100+ years of precedent in the last half dozen. Projection, as usual. When in opposition they act as if the Democrats were doing <insert evil thing>, so they can justify doing <evil thing> when they come topower, because it's "just a reaction".
Booktrope 1y ago
Except, all its rulings are reviewable by the courts. In judicial type cases, results can be reviewed by US Court of Appeals, and appeals courts do overrule the NLRB not infrequently. Rule making is reviewed by courts under the Administrative Procedure Act. This has been standard in the US court system historically for administrative actions at all levels, from school boards making the rules and also deciding cases involving employees and students, to the FDA and SEC for example. Also the president has always had some power to remove board members for cause, not Congress. Congress can change the enabling statutes but only if the President signs the law (or they override the President's Veto). I'm not aware of how Congress can intercede in specific cases. So I don't think it's actually so that the NLRB not answerable to anything but Congress.

krapp 1y ago

Unless the Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from doing a thing, Congress can do that thing. That's how the Constitution works. Or at least prior to the nullification of Chevron, that's how it was supposed to work.

tick_tock_tick 1y ago
> Unless the Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from doing a thing, Congress can do that thing. That's how the Constitution works. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The USA constitution is explicitly the opposite unless Congress is allowed to do something it's not allowed to. Chevron has absolutely nothing to do with that.
- ilovecollies 1y ago
  Chevron has everything to do with that. "the ruling (Chevron) eventually became a target for those seeking to curtail the administrative state, who argued that courts, rather than federal agencies, should say what the law means." The judicial branch ruled to give themselves more power and congress less.
  - tick_tock_tick 1y ago
    > The judicial branch ruled to give themselves more power and congress less. The Chevron ruling being overturned takes power from the Executive effectively making Congress and the Judicial branch stronger.
    - naivenievewhtev 1y ago
      >The Chevron ruling being overturned takes power from the Executive effectively making Congress and the Judicial branch stronger. You honestly can't believe that. I wish you had a modicum of integrity, instead of being so biased and partisan. Biden's only supreme court nomination had a great quote about trump's extreme court and how it makes its own rules. "the [extreme] Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins." Now how does that apply to your stated opinion? When the extreme court finds something it doesn't like it won't let it stand, it will play Calvinball aka "NO FIXED RULES." It doesn't strengthen congress, it consolidates all power into the judicial branch. I know this will get flagged because I didn't fellate you and how dare I criticize your biased and partisan extremist views. This website is like the corporate press, it normalizes extremists and makes them appear normal and sane. Uncle thomas
- ilovecollies 1y ago
  [dead]

ilovecollies 1y ago

[flagged]

tick_tock_tick 1y ago
> If you don't like the laws you can attempt to overthrow the government and suffer little to no repercussions. Why would I need to? While it has taken a long time these gross abuses of power are being slowly corrected.
- ilovecollies 1y ago
  [dead]
docdeek 1y ago
>> Clarence "Uncle" Thomas's There's no need to use the Uncle Tom epithet to criticize the behavior you don't like in a Supreme Court judge.
- UncleThomas 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - docdeek 1y ago
    You're gonna keep on creating new accounts, huh?
- fakeracismjudge 1y ago
  [dead]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

daveguy 1y ago

That is completely valid by the constitution. The judiciary is clearly still a check. The judiciary striking this down would mean that Congress has one less check on the executive, which is exactly what Project 2025 wants to install an unaccountable theocracy.

salynchnew 1y ago

Until the VERY recent Chevron ruling, that's how Congress's powers were intepreted. The Necessary and Proper Clause (or Elastic Clause) in the Constitution grants (or granted, I guess) this power. It's wild to think how Republicans used to complain about activist judges, but the current Federalist Society slate has undone at least 100+ years of precedent in the last half dozen.

mschuster91 1y ago
> It's wild to think how Republicans used to complain about activist judges, but the current Federalist Society slate has undone at least 100+ years of precedent in the last half dozen. Projection, as usual. When in opposition they act as if the Democrats were doing <insert evil thing>, so they can justify doing <evil thing> when they come topower, because it's "just a reaction".

Booktrope 1y ago

Except, all its rulings are reviewable by the courts. In judicial type cases, results can be reviewed by US Court of Appeals, and appeals courts do overrule the NLRB not infrequently. Rule making is reviewed by courts under the Administrative Procedure Act. This has been standard in the US court system historically for administrative actions at all levels, from school boards making the rules and also deciding cases involving employees and students, to the FDA and SEC for example. Also the president has always had some power to remove board members for cause, not Congress. Congress can change the enabling statutes but only if the President signs the law (or they override the President's Veto). I'm not aware of how Congress can intercede in specific cases. So I don't think it's actually so that the NLRB not answerable to anything but Congress.