77
Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies
(www.scotusblog.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
77 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10179 readers
110 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Thats a good thing. Unelected officials should not be passing laws.
Regulations are not laws. They are the specific implementation mechanisms of laws.
For example, Congress passes a law like the Clean Water Act. But that law doesn't (and cannot feasibily) lay out every single individual rule necessary to ensure the clean water that it seeks to protect and provide.
For example, it contains a section that requires Water Quality Standards to be set by each state, for themselves. However, if a state does not create them, the act authorizes the EPA to create a standard for them.
That's not the EPA "creating laws", it's the EPA implementing the congressionally-passed CWA.
They’re not “passing laws.” They define the minute technical details that Congress can’t cover completely or doesn’t understand. Here’s an example:
Elected Congress: Don’t sell moldy sausage.
Unelected FDA: Ok, here’s how long you can safely store sausage below this temperature. If that date is passed or the sausage has been exposed to higher temperature for this amount of time, it must be discarded to greatly reduce the possibility of selling moldy sausage.
Unelected Judge: Mom said if it’s not green it’s not moldy. Just don’t sell green sausage boys.
Unelected SCOTUS: Yup, that’s how it’s done.
More like they can still make those ruling, but now instead of them being challenged solely on a costitutional basis, they can be challenged on whether or not they follow the law in question.
Defining moldy is one thing. Declaring shoestrings to be machine guns is another
Congress is the one who passed the GCA, FOPA, and NFA. If you don't like the definition of a machine gun being a firearm that fires more than once with a single actuation of the trigger (and the parts that allow them to), blame them, not the ATF.
Making owning shoes a felony is ridiculous, and I honestly cant believe you're arguing in good faith.
And a shoe string does not create a firearm that fires more than once with a single actuation of the trigger.
The ATF went completely off the rails with that one, and it shouldnt have been a challenge of how constitutional it was, it should have been a challenge that it didn't fit the law.
They didn't make owning shoes a felony. Rich of you too accuse ME of arguing in bad faith in the same breath you say that.
If you use a string to make a reciprocating charging handle pull the trigger as it returns to battery after firing, why is that less "legitimate" in converting the gun into automatic firing than using an auto-sear? In both cases, the gun fires multiple times with a single pull of the trigger by a person.
Okay, it was everyone who owned a gun and a shoestring. Sure, gun owners are no longer allowed to lace up their shoes. Heres a link to the letter. Thats a sensible rule. https://old.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/p46y9n/just_a_reminder_that_in_2007_the_atf_classified/
So no, gun owners with shoes are not felons, unless they combine those 2 things to make a machinegun. Obviously.
This shifts balance from unelected officials who can be fired by the president (administrative officials) towards unelected officials who can't be (judges). It doesn't actually reduce regulatory power, just puts that regulatory power under the supervision and review of even less accountable officials.