• If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.

Yesterday's SCOTUS rulings even better than we thought

rbstern

Hen of Fame Supporter
The Hen that laid the Golden Legos
120   0
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
9,464
Reaction score
17,408
Location
Hartwell
I was so excited about the Loper Bright decision, I completely forgot there were other, important cases pending.

In SEC v. Jarkesy, the court ruled a defendant in a federal rules case has a right to a jury trial, and can't be punished by the executive branch in an administrative tribunal.

In Corner Post v. Federal Reserve, the court ruled that the six year statue of limitations for executive agency rules applies from the time a plaintiff is first affected, and not when the rule was first added. In other words, if the government is putting the thumbscrews to you with a seven year old rule, they can't claim your window to sue for relief is gone because the rule has been in effect for more than six years. The clock starts when they first start harming you with the rule.

SCOTUS went boss mode on the deep state. The three decisions handed down yesterday combine to significantly reduce the power of the federal government to oppress people with extra-judicial, administrative state bull****...

And, to no one's surprise, the lefty members of the court are wailing and gnashing about all this liberty and due process being restored to citizens.
 
They'll pay us with our own money. I thought all those fed traitors swore an oath to uphold the constitution but they're like all the rest of the Washington swamp rats. It took the SC to strip them of some of their powers to keep the feds from destroying American citizens
 
One take on all of this I just read: These decisions may be, collectively, SCOTUS' reaction to government overreach during the pandemic.
Well if it is, along with people getting their eyes opened to the state of "health care" in this country, then perhaps it wasn't all bad.
 
There is no bad to this new ruling. I see no way that any thinking person could think there was. Chevron Deference was a precedent (not a law) that was set in 1984 which basically said that if Congress had not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable.
Friday's ruling overturned that precedence. So Courts are no longer allowed to rely on the Federal Agency's interpretation of the law. I do not see how that could be a bad thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom