Corporations Have Been Salivating Over This SCOTUS Decision | Robert Reich
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 січ 2024
- The Supreme Court is hearing two cases that could upend federal regulations designed to protect us.
Big corporations are salivating for a ruling that goes their way.
Here’s what you need to know.
Since they ruled that doctors should have no say in the health of women, we are living in some very frightening times.
If that’s your argument then where was your outrage when Biden actually fired pregnant federal employees because their doctors had advised them NOT to get the Covid shot while pregnant?
When did they say that?
@@willmont8258 where have you been? under a rock?
@@e-spy The court never said any such thing. You are making that up, because making things up is all you have.
@@NA-nr1sx The court never said any such thing, so you need to get some sense before you believe BS.
This is the flaw in the US judicial system that allow judges to make law rather than interpret it. Only congress should be allowed to make & change law. Scotus has become a political tool & takes too much power to itself
Because we let them!
Trouble is in the interpretation they rule the law is not valid or in the case of the second amendment as an example, like many preachers they interpret it incorrectly or twist it to suit themselves or their masters, it's like this 13 amendment problem that is going through court, it needs no interpretation as it was written to be understood just like the rest of the constitution and the second amendment, they were not written so they could mean this or if you wanted they could mean that or that you need a supreme Court to interpret it for you that is no different than the catholic church saying you might be able to read but you can't understand what you read and uou need the Vatican to tell you what the bible says.
It's called "legislating from the bench", and like just about everything else the Right (GOP: Gaslight, Obstruct, Project) scaremongers about "the left" doing, they are already doing it themselves, by packing courts with incredibly Rightwing, out of touch, greedy, corrupt judges.
They aren't writing bills or other legislation
This is exactly what this case is looking to overturn. Judges, by giving deference to unelected regulators, were in effect removing the rule-making powers of Congress.
The amount of mental contortion required to see this as *SCOTUS* making up law is truly astoundingly monumental.
Something has gone terribly wrong in this country - thank you, Mr. Reich!
Some things. Plural.
@@cdubya3071 You're right :)
It's called an entitled nation who stopped being politically involved decades ago.
As long as their personal lives aren't rocked they have no context nor empathy for others.
It,s called Greed.
@@david4096 my own mother, God love her is a low information voter who has sadly been caught up in some conspiracy theories. I have told her what she's seeing is greed and croni capitalism. A secret cabal plotting a grand reset is literally more believed by people like this. It's completely assanign.
At some point Americans need to wake up to the reality of their servitude and stop all the "In America we're free!" nonsense. Future generations are depending on it.
I think the left understands that.
The level of brainwashing, and gas-lighting is so complete I have no hope the average American will be a force for change, at least not before it's too late.We are watching the end stage of our society right before our very eyes.
The elite planning the future of their surfs.
"According to the official list, which is accurate as of Jan. 10, 2,658 attendees are registered for the event. Among them are heads of state, business royalty, actual royalty, media honchos, and academics. There are hundreds more participating on the sidelines, whether organizing, catering, or attending corporate events along the promenade that cuts through the center of Davis."
"More than 27% are attendees from the U.S." "
There will be at least 634 CEOs in Davos this year, or nearly one in four attendees. Big names include:
🛢️ Wael Sawan (Shell)
🛒 Andy Jassy (Amazon)
🏦 Jane Fraser (Citigroup)
💉 Stéphane Bancel (Moderna)
💸 Laurence Fink (BlackRock)
Some companies send large delegations to the event. Ten organizations have seven or more participants registered. One of the top ten is Stanford University." QZ
"From the U.S., attendees include Secretary of State Antony Blinken; national security advisor Jake Sullivan; and Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry." CNBC
"A White House official said Sullivan was expected to make a speech and that Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, would also attend. The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment." Reuters
"BlackRock, the world's largest investment manager, has become an increasingly influential Wall Street player in Washington, DC. The firm has hired notable policy-makers over the years, and at least three leaders with the New York-based asset manager on their resumes now hold prominent roles in President Joe Biden's cabinet.
Former BlackRock investment executive Brian Deese leads Biden's National Economic Council, effectively serving as his top advisor on economic matters. Biden also tapped Adewale "Wally" Adeyemo, a former chief of staff to BlackRock chief executive and longtime Democrat Larry Fink, to serve as a top official at the Treasury Department.
Meanwhile Michael Pyle, BlackRock's former global chief investment strategist who had worked in the Obama administration before joining the firm, serves as chief economic advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris.
But unlike Goldman Sachs, a household brand name synonymous with executives leaving finance to go shape public policy, BlackRock isn't as well-known to people outside the investment industry." businessinsider
the only thing todays deplorable parents are going to produce is the next generation of headaches for everybody else, just like their parents made them.
this republican court is a nightmare
I bet when the Supreme Court made decisions supporting a progressive agenda you thought they were great.
It Stinks like there master.
It's a smart chess move by the Republican, the judicial has no term limits.
@@RaymondSoon It' primarily the handi-work of Mitch McConnell.
Everything, anything that is Rethuglicon/reichwing is vile, criminal, corrupted, sociopathic--think: Policies of a serial killer.
We already have some of the worst consumer protections in the world. Making them even worse is an awful idea.
Rethuglicon policy is ALWAYS: Everything for corporations & their greedy CEOs, nothing but crap for the rest of America.
Yep, look at all the crap they're allowed to put in our food.
This stems back at least to Cal Coolidge who said "The business of government is business." This defies the Constitution in which our Preamble clearly outlines the responsibilities of our government.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
@@vernonfrance2974 Money doesn't care about are constitution and seeks solely to undermine or outright defy it and challenges those whom are most affected - those with the least money - to afford to battle their wallets.
Because its not a battle of law or right or sanity, it's always nothing more than a battle of wallets. Of course, with ever less scrutiny or tax responsibility, corporations have the biggest wallets. So they can win almost any battle and simply buy politicians to suit their needs.
Pushing us ever closer to the 'taxation withOUT representation' that caused this country to be founded in the first place. No, the question is, will the sheep stand up and say NO! at point of rifle, or meekly shrug and go about paying their taxes and continue filling corporate wallets?
@amzarnacht6710 Yes. The love of money is the root of all evil.
All regulations were implemented because someone died. Those who advocate removing regulations are guilty of criminal indifference causing bodily harm.
That’s not true. Sometimes people just get horribly maimed. It’s more about money/power, corrupt (aka republican) judges would have more money/power if they decide to break down some of their check/balances that keep the republic stable, in favor of increasing their money/power.
Tldr? It depends on wether republican judges care more about America or their personal power/finances.
Many regulations exist because there are way too many bureaucrats working in these agencies. When there are too many people, there's not enough for all of them to do, so they make up new regulations to get promoted. I really hope I'm not the only one who has seen this. Furthermore, the advice and recommendations of the experts who work for federal agencies is often ignored by cabinet members who are in charge of those agencies in the executive branch because of politics or profit. This potential change in the law may actually be a good thing.
@@selohcin Can you give some specific examples of people inventing regulations to get promoted in federal agencies? That doesn't sound like a thing.
@@henrylubinski2728 Just because some regulations are bad doesn't mean that regulation itself is bad, or that most regulations are bad. I personally think the laws requiring food and drugs to have accurate labelling are extremely useful and important, and wish they were more strictly enforced.
@whysocurious7366 we know what these judges care about and it's not people or America.
WTF? Seriously? Shouldn't we all be outraged by this rogue court continuing to overreach its authority?
And what will our outrage accomplish? SCOTUS knows they’re untouchable with our current Congress.
Vote Blue.💙
Of course we should & we are, buy SC justices have their jobs for life. WTH can we do about it? If we had the balls to add more justices to the SC, then we could do something about it. But until the president ( or whom ever has the right to) grows a pair, we are doomed. VOTE FOR GOD’S SAKE. 💙💙💙💙🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
@lzrd8460 grows a pair? When the House is Republican? How much power do you believe the president has?
There is no limit to their authority. I no longer waist energy being "outraged", it accomplishes nothing. They don't care. They are laughing at us and our outrage. We have no say in the matter. Move along. Nothing to see here.
@@cynthiadavis3102
Actually, the Senate gets to define the structure of the SCOTUS. One thing I've argued for years is SCOTUS can take 2 forms: 1) Adding more justices (which require some form of lottery to define which subset actually hears a case, similarly to how circuit courts work). 2) Keep the number at 9, but create a new definition of a SCOTUS justice. Active and Inactive. Justices can be active for say 15 years, then are placed on inactive status. Inactive justices continue to receive their salaries and benefits (thus keeping in line with Article III as lifetime appointments). Any newly created vacancies are to be filled within 90 days of occuring. The current SCOTUS would be subject to the rules changes, meaning that Thomas, Roberts, and Alito would immediately be put on inactive status.
The problem with any rules change is that the Senate must vote to remove the 60 vote threshold for rules changes, or we'll continue with the current idiocy.
Young people want a leader who will protect our planet. Not trump
Not Biden either
Trump gets undeserved good publicity. Biden gets undeserved bad publicity.
There is a lot of competition to be LEADER. Factions and Fictions apply. If You don't know where you are going, you could end up somewhere else. There will be an Epochal Eclipse a CROSS North America on April 8th 2024, when MORE shall be revealed to those with "eyes and ears." The rest will see only an eclipse. Don't stare at the sun: Matthew 16: 4. exercise YOUR faith -- Jonah 3: 5, 8 Jonah 4: 11.
Not only Dumpy, it’s the entire Republican Party that deny that we have a climate emergency. If someone understands that we have a global crisis they still won’t cross Dumpy because they are part of the Cult.
would be nice for once if the leaders of the world weren't people pulled from elderly homes.
This is exactly what is meant when Republicans say they want "small government." It's a trojan horse. To the average working class voter, small government stands for some admirable quest to guarantee personal liberty, but to the average corporate CEO it means freedom to do whatever they want without government (we the people) oversight. Profits over people means what it says - the wealth class doesn't give two craps about we the people.
They meal small enough to fit into and control every single facet of our lives from birth to death.
You're exactly right, Deborah. To the owners of the Free Market, "freedom" means the freedom to run amok.
The sad thing is that we have voters that don't understand this. What are the schools teaching these people?
It's not a trojan horse.
Because it's not hidden.
They just come right out and say it.
If you were to ask them "Hey, do you think businesses should be free to do whatever they want to make a profit without government getting in the way, even if it hurts people?" They'd just say yes. "Should poor people die if they can't afford healthcare?" They'd say yes, 'they made their choices.'
Etc. Etc.
It's literally not being hidden.
It's just being accepted by the severely uneducated, the victors of moral luck, the wealthy, and the downright evil.
To be clear, the only way forward is education (of those being taken advantage of for power, i.e. poor conservatives)--
Or to accept the fact that this is all being done by power and force, and thus can only be responded to in kind.
The elite planning the future of their surfs.
"According to the official list, which is accurate as of Jan. 10, 2,658 attendees are registered for the event. Among them are heads of state, business royalty, actual royalty, media honchos, and academics. There are hundreds more participating on the sidelines, whether organizing, catering, or attending corporate events along the promenade that cuts through the center of Davis."
"More than 27% are attendees from the U.S." "
There will be at least 634 CEOs in Davos this year, or nearly one in four attendees. Big names include:
🛢️ Wael Sawan (Shell)
🛒 Andy Jassy (Amazon)
🏦 Jane Fraser (Citigroup)
💉 Stéphane Bancel (Moderna)
💸 Laurence Fink (BlackRock)
Some companies send large delegations to the event. Ten organizations have seven or more participants registered. One of the top ten is Stanford University." QZ
"From the U.S., attendees include Secretary of State Antony Blinken; national security advisor Jake Sullivan; and Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry." CNBC
"A White House official said Sullivan was expected to make a speech and that Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, would also attend. The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment." Reuters
"BlackRock, the world's largest investment manager, has become an increasingly influential Wall Street player in Washington, DC. The firm has hired notable policy-makers over the years, and at least three leaders with the New York-based asset manager on their resumes now hold prominent roles in President Joe Biden's cabinet.
Former BlackRock investment executive Brian Deese leads Biden's National Economic Council, effectively serving as his top advisor on economic matters. Biden also tapped Adewale "Wally" Adeyemo, a former chief of staff to BlackRock chief executive and longtime Democrat Larry Fink, to serve as a top official at the Treasury Department.
Meanwhile Michael Pyle, BlackRock's former global chief investment strategist who had worked in the Obama administration before joining the firm, serves as chief economic advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris.
But unlike Goldman Sachs, a household brand name synonymous with executives leaving finance to go shape public policy, BlackRock isn't as well-known to people outside the investment industry." businessinsider
We could leave a better world for the next generation if we're able to get money out of politics today!
That would require voting for no one who accepts corporate donations.
Obama did, the republican& conservative justices in &on scotus criminally reimposed it 😭
@@JanelleGodwin-zl8li Obama did not get money out of politics.
The elite planning the future of their surfs.
"According to the official list, which is accurate as of Jan. 10, 2,658 attendees are registered for the event. Among them are heads of state, business royalty, actual royalty, media honchos, and academics. There are hundreds more participating on the sidelines, whether organizing, catering, or attending corporate events along the promenade that cuts through the center of Davis."
"More than 27% are attendees from the U.S." "
There will be at least 634 CEOs in Davos this year, or nearly one in four attendees. Big names include:
🛢️ Wael Sawan (Shell)
🛒 Andy Jassy (Amazon)
🏦 Jane Fraser (Citigroup)
💉 Stéphane Bancel (Moderna)
💸 Laurence Fink (BlackRock)
Some companies send large delegations to the event. Ten organizations have seven or more participants registered. One of the top ten is Stanford University." QZ
"From the U.S., attendees include Secretary of State Antony Blinken; national security advisor Jake Sullivan; and Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry." CNBC
"A White House official said Sullivan was expected to make a speech and that Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, would also attend. The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment." Reuters
"BlackRock, the world's largest investment manager, has become an increasingly influential Wall Street player in Washington, DC. The firm has hired notable policy-makers over the years, and at least three leaders with the New York-based asset manager on their resumes now hold prominent roles in President Joe Biden's cabinet.
Former BlackRock investment executive Brian Deese leads Biden's National Economic Council, effectively serving as his top advisor on economic matters. Biden also tapped Adewale "Wally" Adeyemo, a former chief of staff to BlackRock chief executive and longtime Democrat Larry Fink, to serve as a top official at the Treasury Department.
Meanwhile Michael Pyle, BlackRock's former global chief investment strategist who had worked in the Obama administration before joining the firm, serves as chief economic advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris.
But unlike Goldman Sachs, a household brand name synonymous with executives leaving finance to go shape public policy, BlackRock isn't as well-known to people outside the investment industry." businessinsider
Does that include unions to
Thanks again, Professor Reich. I have no faith in this supreme court to rule in favor of the people over corporate lobbyists on anything at all, but I’m trying my best to maintain hope. It’s going to be a long year, we’re lucky to have you. Keep up the good work.
Do you trust appointed bureaucrats who are also contacted by corporate lobbyists to rule in favor of the people. Right?
@@johndouglas4528--
As always, doing the right thing for the American people means observing the facts, and the weight of scientific research. That requires education, a mind open to the truth, and a commitment to serve the public interest-- not a political ideology, party or employer.
Those who object most to regulation are usually those requiring most oversight to protect the public interest.
In the late 1990's, the GOP was full of ideologues who demanded a mythical "free market" on Wall Street, and less or even no regulation from the SEC. When Clinton and a GOP-led congress eviscerated the SEC, these GOP "market mavens" promptly delivered the worst scandal since the Great Depression-- the loss of more than $2 trillion in private assets (pension and other investment funds, home mortgages and more than one million family-serving jobs).
When someone condemns "bureaucrats", this person uncritically serves those who want no public regulation in order to boost their own profit, public interest be damned.
@@johndouglas4528i hear ya, but it's kind of like saying our democratically elected officials get bought so therefore get rid of democracy
Most bureaucrats aren't appointed, they are hired like any other employee; the appointees are top level administrators, generally with no expertise in the subject of the agency they are in charge of. So yes I'd much rather trust an engineer or scientist at an agency to know how much radiation is too much, than a judge that can't even parse the technical data to make an informed decision.@@johndouglas4528
Since courts in the U.S. have already declared whole medical diagnoses in abortion cases for "invalid", based on the judges using inaccurate half-knowledge from wikipedia and not having any formal medical training at all, my hopes of this ending well are severely limited… This is so absurd - the ruling directly violated the law that only approved doctors are allowed to practice medicine in the first place.
That law (or rule) will also get tossed.
half knowledge from wikipedia is a generous assessment. lol they act according to the whims of billionaires that get their "knowledge" from Tucker Carlson's propaganda show (that admitted in court that no reasonable person should believe anything they say)
Where in the construction do you have a right to an abortion
@@fritzforsthoefel8031 Where in the constitution is it stated that courts can overrule medical diagnoses?
Where in the constitution does it say that Christian absolutism/extremism, that shares many postulations with radical Islam, shall be the basis for all laws and the common moral compass?
That aside, it's a human rights matter, specifically regarding self-ownership/personal autonomy and preserving a person's mental&bodily integrity and human dignity.
The U.S. has ratified the human rights bill btw, and those rights are on the same level as the constitution in all civilized countries.
Things could be so easy. Don't be an asshole and don't harm others, but no, even that is too much to ask.
@@fritzforsthoefel8031 where does it say it is prohibited? Where does it say laymen can practice medicine? Where does it say that the constitution can take away rights? I'll guarantee if you could get pregnant abortion would be legal.
The Supreme Court: The organization that thinks corporations are people, but Dred Scott isn’t.
I wish this was less true..
Neither where Native Americans
Yes, the multinational group of investors get to flood our air ways with ads saying the other guy will kill kids while remaining completely anonymous
They seem to think we are all expendable, just an experiement to see what works.
Thanks, McConnell v the FEC
Years ago I would joke that my death will probably be directly caused by a GOP policy. It has ceased being a joke.
Va government healthcare is famous for poor healthcare and high prices when government eventually takes over all health care we can all have poor healthcare but hey at least it will be free
Please think of regulations as your protection against them (establishment, corporations, banks, billionaires, government itself). Regulations are game rules, limits how far *they* can go on *you.* This is why they want to get rid of them.
It never ceases to amaze me how corporations are able to spin deregulation as somehow benefiting the _worker._
"By preventing us from poisoning your drinking water, they are doing you a disservice."
Like, seriously? Texas wasn't example enough of how much deregulation _hurts_ the working-class?
REGULATIONS by the Agency is not legal. Laws are the SOLE power of the Legislature. If they cannot do their jobs, elect someone else.
The Supreme Court did not regulate a woman’s body - they simply pushed it back to the Legislature and States.
Amendments to the Constitution are always a possibility.
9th Amendment should also be better enforced.
Kind of how these guys took medical decisions from doctors/patients.
This court was sent straight from hell
No, they are just being REPUBLICANS!!!
Be sure to single out the three Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan as the three minority women whose opinions are also being written. I cannot imagine being in their shoes.
If the corporations get their way and federal agencies are stripped of their power to regulate, the U.S. government will be effectively no longer exist. It's role would be reduced to Big Corpo's private military, because that's the only part that would still function.
would still function? we're basically the only thing that works now. the judiciary is openly and wantonly corrupt (looking at you SC and Judge Cannon), GOP effectively stops Congress from being effective, Trump sabotaged the USPS and IRS and EPA.....
Federal agencies don't have the power to make laws, and if they try to the courts should strike down their attempts. Only Congress can make law, not agencies.
Thank you for trying to save America.
Even if I think its too late.
It's never too late, but how difficult we want to make it is up to us.
This alone should make people think twice about giving Trump a second term to stuff this kangaroo court with more corporate stooges.
Thank you Robert for simplifying yet another complex issue. I always feel better armed with knowledge when I watch your videos.
Agreed
Same here. I've always loved him,he's a wizard with words.
The elite planning the future of their surfs.
"According to the official list, which is accurate as of Jan. 10, 2,658 attendees are registered for the event. Among them are heads of state, business royalty, actual royalty, media honchos, and academics. There are hundreds more participating on the sidelines, whether organizing, catering, or attending corporate events along the promenade that cuts through the center of Davis."
"More than 27% are attendees from the U.S." "
There will be at least 634 CEOs in Davos this year, or nearly one in four attendees. Big names include:
🛢️ Wael Sawan (Shell)
🛒 Andy Jassy (Amazon)
🏦 Jane Fraser (Citigroup)
💉 Stéphane Bancel (Moderna)
💸 Laurence Fink (BlackRock)
Some companies send large delegations to the event. Ten organizations have seven or more participants registered. One of the top ten is Stanford University." QZ
"From the U.S., attendees include Secretary of State Antony Blinken; national security advisor Jake Sullivan; and Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry." CNBC
"A White House official said Sullivan was expected to make a speech and that Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, would also attend. The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment." Reuters
"BlackRock, the world's largest investment manager, has become an increasingly influential Wall Street player in Washington, DC. The firm has hired notable policy-makers over the years, and at least three leaders with the New York-based asset manager on their resumes now hold prominent roles in President Joe Biden's cabinet.
Former BlackRock investment executive Brian Deese leads Biden's National Economic Council, effectively serving as his top advisor on economic matters. Biden also tapped Adewale "Wally" Adeyemo, a former chief of staff to BlackRock chief executive and longtime Democrat Larry Fink, to serve as a top official at the Treasury Department.
Meanwhile Michael Pyle, BlackRock's former global chief investment strategist who had worked in the Obama administration before joining the firm, serves as chief economic advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris.
But unlike Goldman Sachs, a household brand name synonymous with executives leaving finance to go shape public policy, BlackRock isn't as well-known to people outside the investment industry." businessinsider
It's so nice to have a society built on corruption 😭
The implications of a decision to side with corporations here would be absolutely horrific.
Sick of Judicial power grabs.
I'm quite sure the current batch of government and business leaders in the world never read about French history and the phrase, "let them eat cake".
The court is finally putting a stop to power grabs, thanks to the conservatives.
You can be sure that if they win the big corporation owners will be happy to make their money in the US and live abroad where their health is protected by regulations.
Who needs clean water to drink. Lake Erie was so polluted in the 70, 80 and 90's that fishing was banned! It opened back up in the late 90's. Pollution is BAD!!
Rulings by SCOTUS should be based solely on whether the case brought before them is constitutional or unconstitutional. The consequences of the ruling are irrelevant to the ruling itself. If SCOTUS makes a ruling that has consequences the majority of Americans don't want, `we the people` have the right to pass a formal constitutional amendment. However, therein lies the problem. We are so polarized as a nation you couldn't pass a constitutional amendment even if the vast majority of Americans agreed with it, simply because the major private political parties in this country would rather gouge out their own eyes than agree on anything.
A really great Constitutional amendment would be one that gives you folks the “Right to Vote”. You don’t have a Constitutional right to do that. (Congressman Jamie Raskin. Constitutional scholar) also that the President be elected by the actual citizens of the US. One person, one vote. Constitutionally, as it stands the President is elected by the Electoral College. That’s how you ended up with Trump. By one person, one vote (democracy) Hilary should have been President. Nope. She didn’t score enough points on the Electoral College scoreboard. Trump did. Your voices mean nothing. But no party wants to get rid of it because it may be the only way their candidate wins the Presidency.
Shall we just fast-forward to the logical conclusion of all this and replace our government and the Constitution with corporations with the Trump logo prominently displayed?
Perhaps this will alert whatever amount of reasonable citizens are left to finally acknowledge that the many tens of millions of mentally & ethically compromised adults which have been weaponized against democracy and the families that they come from are the real threat. We need 100 million healthy families which can raise adults with mature minds, and a robust ethical internal compass.
Yes, I agree with you. Wholeheartedly. Your comment reminds me of the movie “Idiocracy” which was supposed to be satire and 500 years in the future no less! Sadly, it reflects the here and now and seems to be the MAGA playbook. It’s quickly turning into more of a scary “Frontline” documentary than a funny movie.
It is astonishing that a court of a few un-elected judges can over-ride the ability of agencies to apply the law.
we the public are already the big losers. thanks supreme court.
Thank you ❤❤❤❤
Vote blue from bottom to top.
🔵🔵🔵🔵🔵🔵🔵🔵🔵🔵🔵
If someone dies, is hurt ,or sickened by a corporation's product people will have to sue in order to get compensation for the loss when all they had to do was obey the regulations. That still would not stop the bad practices from occurring. The corporations think its a nuisance and cheaper to not have the regulations. They should remember people didn't respond very well to this kind of thing a century ago. It often resulted in people sabotaging the factories and strikes by workers. In fact, this was one of the major reasons unions were formed. Maybe people will realize unions are actually a good thing again.
I think it would be a great idea for people who have dedicated their entire lives of finding the truth about a subject (scientists) to decide on cases involving that subject. For the most part, scientists will make decisions based on truth, even to their own personal detriment.
Unfortunately, some scientists have also been bribed and bought out!
For some historical context on the SCOTUS rulings since the Warren court, read Adam Cohen's 'Supreme Inequality-the supreme court's fifty year battle for a more unjust America'. With TFG's additions to the far right court, we are in for decades more of these pro-corporate and pro-oligarch rulings on a wide variety of issues which affect our lives. If there ever was a time when more judges to the SCOTUS are needed to re-balance it, the time is now.
I read that. I thought I knew something about history, but it's a real eye-opener. Agree people should read it to know how far this anti-person this goes.
Thanks, Robert, for sharing this information.
Time for the young voters to REVOLT🇺🇸 please help OUR COUNTRY it's in your hands it's YOUR FUTURE💙🇺🇸💙🇺🇸
Want a perfect example of a corporation making decisions instead of experts? Health insurance companies. Your doctor can prescribe you a medication or recommend a test or procedure only for a for-profit insurance company to say that it's "not medically necessary" and deny you the ability to pay for it. You don't want courts/corporations in control of things.
No regulation is anarchy. Think of Twitter which is now Elon's X. Is the Court ready for that?
Except twitter isn't anarchy. There's plenty of people being banned for saying stuff Elon doesn't like every single day on twitter. It just looks like anarchy because what it is, and what Elon wants it to be, is hate.
Hate isn't anarchy, but it is the ruling power that comes in and takes control when anarchy is pushed for.
Came to validate your point and answer your question. IMHO the courts/laws are metaforicly speaking are about on par with dial up internet access. Courts are not ready by a long shot.
actually, anarchy as a political ideology would have regulation, both in form of self-regulation from worker co-ops and from local direct democracy advised by scientists or that power could be put into a kind of FDA but answer to directly democratic organizations such as federated overlapping directly democratic communes.
zero regulation would only be anarchy if we're considering anarchy by the chaos definition and not as a form of political organization.
@@owenbelezos8369 All you get with "self-regulation" is robber barons and crime syndicates.
The Constitution states in plain language that the federal government has the power to Regulate Commerce. Period. How can this court full of so called ‘originalists’ even suggest that power is limited or non-existent?
Because money. The USA right wing has been stacking the federal court system since at least the Nixon presidency, google the Federalist Society. Mother Jones in the 90's did a series of articles on corporations/rich people donating millions in campaign contributions around the country to judges running in local elections. The rich now rule the USA. Regular people are effed. Things are going to get worse for a long time
If they're true originalists like they claim then Barrett and Thomas should immediately set down. One wasn't a person and the other couldn't vote.
Somehow I guess there's an exception to original text where they're concerned.
CONGRESS has that power, not some bureaucratic agency which isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. That is what this case is about. Congress must make the laws, not a bureaucratic agency.
In any normal world this would be seen as the overstep it is. They've basically writing law at this point.
No, the Court is preventing the bureaucrats from overstepping their authority. The Court is not writing law, they are stopping bureaucrats from writing law.
I never knew defendants could "judge shop." Maybe this is simply something I've yet to think out, but it seems massively corrupt, to me, and at this moment I think it should be abolished.
The Federalist Society is a place for political activists with law degrees to sign up to... and if they get lucky, they can become federal justices... or in the case of Amy, Kavanaugh, and their ilk, Supreme Court Justices...
TERM LIMITS PLEASE!
*Absolutely first rate and vital work Robert. I shall disseminate as far and wide as I possibly can* 👍😎
Thank you Robert ❤
Keep telling on them!
Thank You Dr.
I lobbied for Elder Care for the Elderly in rural Virginia in the Mid Bush years.(how drunk was he to get pulled over in Texas while not serving his military duty). I did not tell Heritage who I was when I tussled with Governor Allen. No trouble with him...the intellect of a pencil eraser.
I am at the end of this road. I have no forum...and no one ever invites me to a cocktail party anymore...maybe because I stopped drinking with them.
My comment at the NYT this am was about the outrage against the Beach murderer. I am far more upset about the Catholics who do not reach for the collection plate to fund our system of education. One can only imagine that they have never been downtown and have to look for a public toilet.
Thanks for listening. My financial contribution to your program is on its way.
Metta,
Colin
If you didn't know this was coming. You haven't paid attention, before you walked into the voting booth.
Surely courts don't want to handle a bunch of detailed, technical, regulatory matters. Let government professional experts continue to handle these matters, instead of letting corporations find ways to bypass regulatory control at expense of health, welfare, and safety of the general public.
This is the same as health insurance companies that have non medically trained idiots deciding whether a patient can have a DOCTOR prescribed treatment for their illness/injury. The only PEOPLE ( not AI) that should ever have consideration over any issue should be those who are EDUCATED AND TRAINED in such issues. The courts have no business in anything but interpretation of law and judgement. Doctors in health care. Teachers in education. Soldiers in war.
There is one thing that has been missing far too much in recent years that must come back or we'll put ourselves out of existence: MORALITY.
*The decisions we make in life can have a huge impact on our finances. It's not just about when you start, but what you achieve in the end that really counts. While UA-cam is great, having a mentor helps you understand better.*
To gain wealth and be financially independent, I will say to save, invest and always put your finances in good care to ensure that your income rises. Remember that making money is action, keeping money is behavior but growing money is knowledge.
And seeking guidance from a CFP can lead to financial success. Personally, with the help of my CFP, I've been involved in lucrative projects and have accumulated a significant sum. In 2024, seeking help is definitely the right approach for wealth accumulation and management.
I have been in search for ways to make my money work hard for me. Unfortunately, I've experienced several failed attempts, which made me lose hope. However, reading your comment has truly reignited the fire within me, and I feel incredibly grateful. If you don't mind, how can I contact your Coach ?
Search the names as shown if you care.
*ELIZABETH CHLOE SCOTT.*
NO, NO, NO!!! WE MUST NOT LET THE BIG CORPORATIONS RULE ON THIS!!!!!
Problem is only libs and good people watch bob, not the ones who really need to
Funny how we have so little control over our lives but they lean heavily on “personal responsibility” 🤡
Just another aspect of how our current SCOTUS is not worthy of our respect. We have to obey them, but we don't have to respect them.
We don't have to obey them and they need to be obsolete. They rule the entire government because the other branches won't exercise checks and balances. This hokey court has done nothing to earn validity in the eyes of the people.
Agree. At the same time, why are the 3 minority judges (women of color and ethnic background) tossed into the same category with the corrupt ones?
Europe already laughs at our food safety regulations, or lack thereof. Imagine making those standard worse.
We the people need to stand together, not fighting with eachother.
"We have the best government money can buy." Mark Twain
My favorite author. Not sure anyone has existed who so honestly observed and reported the human condition. And he did it with immeasurable wit.
I don't advocate for any of it, but we literally have former members of Monsanto regulating what we can and can't eat...there are no good options here, it's all bad
The Courts, not the Executive branch and it's agencies, are the ones charged with interpretating the laws. That's in the Constitution. If a court ruling is egregious, Congress can revisit.
And we have already seen one supreme court judge that was bought and paid off but with no consequences to him as yet.
It may take a generation for the Supreme Court to be respected again.
Longer. You need new judges and another generation to show people integrity again.
Yes, with Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson it may never recover! Not one of those should have ever been selected for jury duty let alone US supreme court!
Many think that they found something on Chief Justice Roberts to give us unconstitutional ACA which has only jacked up and dumb down health insurance and made the fat cats even richer! You know the same people the left claim to hate but put in charge of everything!!!!!!
Watch what you ask for you might just get it!
"SCOTUS agrees that SCOTUS should have more power"
Classic politics/political maneuvering.
Thank you Robert! 2nd Biden term needs you in the cabinet!!
Thank you so much for your dedication.
This will make America impossible to govern in the public’s interest.
This is actually a very very big deal. And will go unnoticed in the press.
Not to mention if overturned regulatory challenges will overwhelm the court system making any act of regulation impossible.
The problem is that granting federal agencies rule making authority makes it possible to create felons of ordinary citizens. Imagine, for example, a federal agency making possession of a backhoe illegal after you have already bought one.
Even with Federal agencies hamstrung by lack of funding these corporations still want more.
pass the pro act
Gorsuch gets to finish the job that his mother started when she tried to destroy the EPA. Really.
SCOTUS should stick to what they are there for, interpreting the US Constitution, and not getting involved in every dispute launched by extreme groups on either side.
The professor always tells it like it is. Courts nearly always defer to the expertise of administrative agencies, and for good reasons. They can focus on whether agencies followed proper procedures (e.g., Administrative Procedures Act).
SCOTUS should have Food and Water delivered to them that is Unregulated (It's only 30 days past expiry!) (the Lead in Water was never a problem in Detroit). And perhaps unregulated Doctors of dubious qualifications could take over their Health care (That Tumour on your Lung..Get outta Here No Problem)
If Federal Agencies actually acted in ways that protect the public, rather than ways that grow and solidify the power of the Federal Government, maybe we wouldn't be here?
This would be Citizen's v United 2.0, where corporations are not just people, but also more important than any person.
We already have corporations sueing people for loss of potential profits. So we're pretty much there already.
cool, radium will be back in toothpaste, lead inside the pluming and arsenic in wallpaper... live will be so cool... and 6ft under
While I agree, the greater question is not one of expertise but incentive. I think you need to do a better job of demonstrating why the motives of federal agencies are more closely aligned with public interest than the courts, especially since neither is _theoretically_ aligned with private interests.
Expertise has rarely been the deficit causing the majority of harm (at least in recent history).
And to suggest one answer to that question myself, I believe the court system's decentralized/diverse structure makes it more vulnerable to corruption. Organized powers can establish precedent by proactively triggering cases when and where outcomes are most likely to be favorable. Federal agencies on the other hand are subject to the oversight of political appointees, making them more sensitive to public interests, and reversible once lobbying scams are exposed. Exploits for private interest that get all the way to high courts on the other hand are generally locked in for decades, and big business loves guarantees.
Now where did I leave that pitchfork?
Thank you for clarifying. 😊
The trouble is this also means the DEA decides what drugs are legal or how they're scheduled. This is a bureaucracy making laws, the police deciding what's a crime. That's supposed to be the job of Congress
They can because there is no police reform bill. It is always the problem that there is simply a Federal Bill missing saying how things should be. This leaves the matter to the executive (president, governor) and judiciary for "interpretation".
Yes, but that's an issue that can be addressed separately. There's no reason environmental regulations should be thrown out just because the DEA is abusing its authority. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I agree with you completely. The Chevron Doctrine is horrendous, and I'll be glad to see it go.
@@pendlera2959 Congress has every right to make environmental regulations. The EPA has no right. That's what's at issue.
@@darkwingscooter9637??? Congress CREATES these agencies. For the purpose of overseeing the business sectors that have authoritarian powers affecting citizen consumers.
Congress sets the laws and creates the agency. Then gives the agency powers of interpretation. Agency's create systems of inspection, review, certification and policing. Take away those systems... Corporatocracy.
This terrific video will no doubt trigger the usual corporate bootlicking trolls like yourdaddy who is actually Zach who was removed from UA-cam for misinformation.
The sound of the US experiment swirling around the bowl.
Please keep us posted about this issue. Thank you
Thanks, Ill be passing this disturbingly sad info on.
What will corporations do when we the people can no longer afford their garbage and we live in a third world country? Will they just sit on their mountains of money gloating while average people die because their medical costs are unobtainable? I dont see their end game other than an few rich families fightimg to be the first quadrillionaires in history....☹️
I think you already answered your own question. "They" won't be happy till they own everything.
Who knew there were people nostalgic for The Industrial Revoluion and the days of _The Jungle_ ?
The courts have already decided they know more than doctor's by stripping women of their personal right to their own body issues.
The Court did no such thing.
It's not the job of Federal agencies to interpret laws. The interpretation of laws belong to the judicial branch not the executive. That's basic civics. I can't believe the courts gave up this responsibility. If courts need expert testimony then expert witnesses will be called to testify.
Justice has pulled off her blindfold and now she wants a new RV and will quit if she doesn't get a raise.
You mean Clarence Thomas ...he should have left. Don't let the door hit him. Congress confirmed them. They should have the right to investigate and remove them!!
@@judehylton9692 Congress is just as bad if not worse.
SCOTUS needs to removed or abolished!
Let's say "reformed" because you need someone watching over the rules. But only the rules. Not making policy. A good example would be the Germans "Bundesverfassungsgericht". It was "designed" after bad experiences with Hitler and contains a lot of Anti-Fascism and Anti-Corruption meachnisms.
Robert always showing the truth ❤
Are federal agencies less susceptible to corporate influence than the courts are?
If you haven't figured it out by now, America is not a COUNTRY its a CORPORATION.
That's how fascism works. Big corporations have no rules to follow.
They’re bbbaaacccckkkk…yes, it took a little over 100 years of backroom, under the table, stealthy maneuvering…but the ROBBER BARONS are BACK!
How do you make a change when it’s the very people you rely on to do it that are the problem?
Thank you for all you do!!!!
Florida has passed a bill that allows the corporations to sue communities for hindering their profit..
If that's true. I can't wait until the lawsuits come down because communities simply don't have the funds to buy crap anymore. Eventually people JUST DO NOT HAVE MONEY to increase profits for corporations.
At some point the Sheriff of Nottingham just can't get anymore taxes out of people.
Jeezus H Roosevelt Christ, that is _INSANE._
Of course. The free market is a religion, and the people who believe in it really think it will save us from everything. Why wouldn't you want businesses to rule over you? It's not like businesses are inherently dictatorial...
@@dawnkindnesscountsmost5991 if you tell a company they have to follow certain regulations like when putting up a building, of they don't like the regulations they can sue the town at the tax payers expense for hindering their profits , thanks to our terrible governor Ron Dumsantis...
That's DeSantis Baby Trumpy wanna be
Aside from needing and having real experts, we need to remove real experts who lie, cheat and display certain information that benefits corporations