Running SCOTUS thread

There might be some there. But that's what the justices were saying, was that the stuff the agencies were doing were not necessarily illegal but rather they lacked the authority to do it in the first place. A lot of legislation vaguely cedes too much authority to agencies, and Congress needs to rein that in. The rulings were a check on Congress as much as the administrative state.

 

You’re calling this court independent? It’s an arm of the MAGA Republicans.

 

If we have to wait for Congress to debate the minutia of mundane regulations, there might as well be no regulations. ... but I guess that's the point.

 

The administration got slapped down, and then they tried to work through loopholes. Same difference?
And I'm sure there are court cases working their way up.

 

Erring on the side of freedom isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

You're not wrong. It probably cuts both ways. On the one hand, legislation has been purposefully vague and left to the bureaucracy to figure out how to roll it out. This leads to dry washes to be called waterways. On the other, it hamstrings agencies from reacting in real time. You can't account for every scenario and it opens the door to companies following the letter of the laws while violating the spirit. And getting anything through Congress is a PITA now a days.

But I still chuckled at the line you were using to reference the executive bureaucracy that easily applies to SCOTUS mostly because the Court knows short of Andrew Jackson resurrecting and telling them to raise their own army, they can do most anything they want. See also Thomas.

 

The administration - populated with professionals, and not "People from the right-wing media sphere who told Donald Trump he was awesome," - knew how to work within the confines of the law to enact the policy they desired. And if they're "slapped down" again, they'll abide by that ruling, too.

Nevertheless: You agree that "Student loans!" is specifically not an example of the administration defying a ruling by the Supreme Court, right?

 

This particular Court might have a conservative lean — although that's sometimes debatable; Kavanaugh, Barrett and Roberts side with the liberal justices more often than you'd think and certainly more than some conservatives would like — but the Supreme Court itself is one of the three equal branches of government.

You're not mad that the Court currently leans right. You're mad because you think it should be an arm of the Democratic Party because it suits your political agenda.

 

What the freedom of polluters to pollute, corner cutters to cut corners, raiders to raid, etc?

 

On the other side of every regulation is a class of people who were first harmed by another, leading to the regulation.

But hey: I look forward to MGT's bill covering the scientific particulars of air-quality measurements.

 

I think there's a difference between no regulations, or common sense regulations, and regulations that run into the thousands of pages, are almost impossible to abide by, and lead to heavy fines for minor infractions.
Or, as in the Loper case, that put onerous financial requirements on businesses for questionable reasons.

 

And I shall look forward to AOC's bill covering the particular health risks of gas stoves. I'm sure both will make us laugh until we cry.