FireTower @ FireTower @lemmy.world

Posts

41

Comments

1,262

Joined

2 yr. ago

Not voting is only dangerous if you assume the non-voters would otherwise side with your favored candidate.

Like others have said defensive wars. But I also don't take issues with a countries that have a brief compulsory service system in times of peace as a means of ensuring a large pool of qualified fighters without a large standing army.

The moderator's mic was probably on too.

Think you meant non elected.

But the point is that policy decisions aren't to be made by courts or agencies. They are to be made by an elected legislature, informed by the Congregational Research Services. To ensure the separation of powers.

Then the Executive agencies are to be tasked with enforce of the law. And if conflict should arise in the understanding of the law the judiciary is to interpret the law. And while judges are not experts in everything they are the experts in statutory interpretation.

My perspective having known about Chevron before Friday is that while this is a big development for admin law people seem to be overstating the impact it will likely have. Agencies like the EPA, FDA, etc can still make rules as before now courts just have to judge arguments on interpretation impartially, like they did before the SCOTUS made the doctrine in the 80s aiding Reagan. The SCOTUS hasn't even applied it since 2016.

What did the short-tailed weasel ever do to you to deserve this

Forestalling legislation is one of the most pernicious aspects of certain judicial rulings. Rather than concrete protections we get thin shells waiting for a new ruling to crack.

The issue is the 8A is understood to have refered to the punishments being cruel or unusual, per the Court, not the offense. The actual punishments here (fine, court order, or 30 days in jail) are fairly normal for laws, the only odd thing about the statute is what the "crime" is.

It's the US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for those curious.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade

That'd be a bit excessive, this change doesn't mean the courts can't/won't still accept executive interpretations or that executive rule making is dead. It also doesn't prohibit the delegation of authority from the legislature to the executive branch, it just requires that they do so explicitly. This ruling returned the legal paradigm on part of admin law to a pre-Reagan state.

They aren't trying to find what's reasonable, they're trying to find what the law says. There are a lot of stupid things that aren't unconstitutional, like the death penalty. The majority operates on a 'garbage in garbage out' basis. We got a garbage outcome because they have a garbage law, and we haven't gotten an amendment against it yet.

That said I wholly agree with the sentiment and message regarding the penal institutions we have. The attempts the find different ways to fund that correctional system are consistently producing negative outcomes. The state should bear it's full weight so that they have incentive to maintain a low prison pop.

The reason Chevron told judges to defer to agencies in matters where the interpretation is ambiguous is because those agencies have the experience and and expertise to understand the issues involved far better than a judge who has to try to master the subject from inside the courtroom.

Chevron didn't only apply in areas of niche expertise it also applied to the whole statute. Meaning questions on what words like "other" meant or questions like what a "reasonable measure" was couldn't be heard by judges even though they normally decide those issues. The agencies like the DEA under Chevron could interpret criminal statutes to have new meaning without any legislative action.

Perhaps it's culling was a bit much but it was far to broad.

The GOP finally got what they’ve been trying to get since the 80s. Get ready for The Jungle 2.0.

The GOP wanted Chevron in the 80s. It was a way of tweaking laws passed already without legislative resistance.

In 1981, after Ronald Reagan became President, the EPA changed its interpretation of the word "source" in the law to mean only an entire plant or factory, not an individual building or machine.

I could have been more clear on that. If 1/3 of homeless live in CA and CA makes up 1/10 the population, then CA has disproportionately high homeless population as compared the other states.

I was get at the point that there isn't one cause for CA having this disparity, another commenter pointed out housing prices for one example. And that other parts of the country, even ones with harsh seasons, are still livable albeit not as hospitable.

I see people living homeless outside in New England daily, even in the winter. That discrepancy has to be fed by more than just weather.

They post all their reasonings for every opinion on supremecourt.gov

In this case the tldr is the 8th amendment is concerned with the method or kind of punishment. And here it's a limited fine for 1st time offenders, a court order prohibiting camping in parks, then to a max of 30 days in jail for people who violate that order.

Here's the link to the full text: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf

Any one 40-60 yrs old with moderate politics and an unobjectionable personality supported by a major party would really cause a splash.

Yes