'It’s a power grab!' Mystal on SCOTUS's mentality on the Chevron Deference case
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 січ 2024
- Elie Ying Mystal and Katie Phang break down how the Supreme Court taking on the Chevron Deference may upend a 40-year precedent that could change life as we know it.
» Subscribe to MSNBC: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: www.msnbc.com/maddowblog
ReidOut Blog: www.msnbc.com/reidoutblog
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: www.msnbc.com/
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: link.msnbc.com/join/5ck/msnbc...
Find MSNBC on Facebook: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: / msnbc
#SCOTUS #Chevron #SupremeCourt
I am so tired of the Supreme Court and having to hear how a few rich AH's dole out a few RVs and that dictates how things are going to be...
Wait until you learn about all the shady deals senators are doing!
@@swimminginthoughtsamazing how you become a multi-millionaire when you went in with city council credentials.
@@richardluce775thanks to Citizens United, Buckley vs Vallejo, and several other rulings that allow the USA to remain a plutocracy
BS
So let me get this straight.
You are against the Supreme Court making decisions on how Federal Agencies can dictate the laws that are already passed?
Because those Federal Agencies are literally taking those laws and applying their own favorable context to it, then making us pay for it, too.
So the Justices Caught in Bed with
Billionaires will be Deciding. 😂
It is evident that there are republican appointed justices that have been bought by right-wing billionaires and that the same right-wing billionaires have had undue and highly dubious influence in getting those justices appointed. The Supreme Court has been corrupted and now is not working for the good of the people but for whatever those billionaires desire.
What could possibly go wrong
And red is rejoicing 🙄
Like these regulatory agencies haven't been caught doing the same?
no, they haven't.@@telescopicS627
Major issues people....
Vote straight blue ticket.
This BS must end. 💙
Yeah..they know how to FIX everything. Fanni Willis is a staunch supporter. Just "lOOk what she's done"!
😂😅
🇺🇸🍿🍿🇺🇸
Yes, our survival comes down to one little thing: VOTING.
I like how you pretend one side is better than the other.
@@swimminginthoughtsAnd you see no irony in your comment.
Yes, Vote straight blue to assure you will be blue.
Blue about higher taxes
Blue about more regulation
Blue about being unemployed
Blue from being cold
Blue form a lack of options
Blue from debased currency
Blue from a lack of a future.
Blue from higher cost of living
Blue from higher crime
Just make sure to STAY in the blue areas and leave the other guys alone so they can do it their way.
They've been planning all this for years, people!
People also need to be aware of Project 25
They HAVE!!! I agree! 😡😡😡🤬
Losing public trust even more with each passing day.
Because of what these news channels tell you, and you believe it, do some actual research.
These things are so scary. We have to get additional justices appointed and make the current ones accountable. We are steadily losing our democracy & rights.
You are also believing propaganda.
Chevron is itself an attack on democracy.
You are told to think that nonsense. That's what Hitler had Goebbels do.
💯
Really? You comment the same thing on every post. Paid troll.
Alito is a disgrace and is the poster boy for TERM LIMITS
It's been said that, with the Twenty-Second Amendment, Republicans were aiming for Roosevelt and hit Eisenhower. Putting term limits on judges could backfire far too easily. That said, Thomas, Gorsuch and Trump are the poster boys for the Second Amendment.
Thank you . Finnally someone in the media pointing out the obvious attacks on our democracy.
You are told to think that. That's what Goebbels did
@@scottharrison8701 mickey mouse, and pinocchio said it too! Got substantial words to go with that, about THIS SUBJECT!?
General statements are meaningless!
@@pfflyer3381 - 😆 Are you drunk right now? 😆 Brain fart? What are you missing?
The poster said "obvious attack on democracy" AND they said the Press said it. The Press said nothing of the kind. MSNBC said it, i.e. Goebbels. Moreover, democracy was under attack in the 2020 election. That was obvious!! No one from the Trump or Republican side are attacking democracy!!
That's absurd!!!
I sincerely with all of my heart hope that Trump wins. A few months ago, I was hoping for one of the other Republicans to get the nomination, but now I'm supporting Trump!!
Time for you to wake up and save democracy
Attack on democracy is not letting any other democrat like RFK run against biden, and not giving RFK secret service to protect him, and going after your political opponent is a threat to the Dems so called democracy. biden and his administration of misfits have done everything they can to not protect democracy. But our constitutional Republic will get us through it, biden will never be the nominee, it will be Michael, I mean Michelle Obama, why else would biden put off his state of the union address until after super Tuesday. biden will be pardoning hunter, and resign.
So you see a Democracy as something that allows the Feds to have free rein over how the laws that Congress passes are interpreted?
Most of you don't even know what is really going on, most of the time, you just enjoy the one-liners.
The party that was apoplectic about "tort reform" and "legislation from the bench" is suddenly silent.
The issue here is legislating from the bureaucracy vs following actual legislation.
@@jeffmoser4034
Wrong. Maybe you should LISTEN to what was explained to you. Aside from the fact that Congress does not have the expertise, time, or staff to craft regulations on a granular scale, NO ONE, not even the experts can anticipate what issues may arise in the future that may need to be regulated under the intent of the law they made. When the EPA was established, no one was aware of microplastics in water - but we are now realizing they could be a big problem and the EPA was established to solve those problems. Congress still has oversight over EPA regulations if they choose to use it, so the legislature still has the final word... until now.
@@pdoylemi Wrong again. This potential ruling is being misrepresented like MSNBC always does. Remember when they said Moore v Harper was going to be the end of democracy? This doesn’t have any impact on regulations in areas that Congress has authorized. It only applies in situations where there is a legal dispute over whether Congress has given the authority to regulators. So no, legal disputes should not be decided by regulators.
@@jeffmoser4034
If SCOTUS had upheld the stupid idea of the supremacy of the legislature in making election rules and redistricting without the ability of state courts to review their decisions it WOULD have been the end of democracy!
Also, you clearly do not understand the meaning of "deference". Chevron merely sets the precedent that the plaintiff has to make a very clear case that the agency has exceeded its authority under the law. If there is no clear case to be made - in other words, if the regulation COULD reasonably fit under the law, the court defers to the experts who don't have a profit motive.
The Plaintiffs are STILL free to petition Congress to get the regulation changed - which leaves the power where it BELONGS - with the Congress and the people they delegate to regulate these things. This takes the power from Congress and gives it to the courts. This ruling would force Congress to enact new laws every time some federal judge decides they don't like a regulation.
@@pdoylemi The cases we're talking about are the specific subset of regulations that are ambiguous. So basically, this decision means that the EPA and other agencies have to write their regulations clearly if they want to enforce them. They no longer get to ambush people like farmers or fishermen with unpredictable interpretations of vague regulations; they don't get to, say, define the tiny ridges made by a farmer's plow as "converted uplands" as a way to force him to pay stiff fines.
I read old books because I would rather learn from those who built civilization than those who tore it down.
The victors write history.
I appreciate your sentiment, but there are plenty of hateful old books and articles--like the tens of thousands written by southern pre-Civil War advocates of human slavery.
@@Doc5thMech Not necessarily. The LOSERS often re-write and even dominate history, like the lying southern-sympathizing historians who created the myth of the "Lost Cause" that sustained Jim Crow racism and is influential even today.
This isn't Biffs almanac...
The dinosaurs created this mess and won't own up to it, or let go of it.
40 years? That's it? Dog that people who made that ruling are just the old shts we hate today.
These lifetime appointments need to end! We also need civilian oversight of those corrupt justices🤬! As well as being able to vote for them. We have a bunch of corrupt dinosaurs ruining our lives🤬.
Tone the dramatics down a few notches.
@@nunyuhbusiness9016 It's a good thing that you're irrelevant😑.
Your tears are absolutely delicious
Wasn't there 3 of these that spoke less than the truth during their confirmation hearings?
Jackson brown did.
Yes, Ketanji Jackson lied on her financial disclosures.
@@nkder1Is she the woman that doesn't know what a woman is?
@@davidrhinehart7764 Y’all are so bitter and hateful. It’s gross and weird.
@@nkder1 Sure, Jan.
Thanks Katie! 💙
Elie Ying Mystal argues that Republicans once favored Chevron deference when they believed it would allow them to control the executive branch but have shifted their stance as they find it easier to control the courts.
@@heemlo649 tldr.. paranoid
Taking away the power from the people.
To whom?
The corporate capitalist billionare oligarchy, who else?
Partisan politicians appoint partisan judges to help inact a partisan agenda. Our judges are not selected for their expertise their selected for their bias.
Is that why the DNC wants to pack the court?
A conservative judge would stick to the Constitution. A liberal judge would try to go around the constitution and legislate from the bench -
WHere does it say in the constitution that corporations and unions have the same rights people ? @@pablokoz7497
Thank you for the urgent reminder, Elie Ying Mystal☮️💜
The slow moving coup continues.
So the courts will be in charge of those agencies after this ruling? That makes no sense.
The Constitution gives sole legislative power to Congress. Federal agencies unconstitutionally make "regulations" that are de facto "laws," with civil and/or criminal penalties. (The Constitution does not give Congress the power to delegate its law-making authority to unelected bureaucrats in executive branch federal agencies.). Hopefully, SCOTUS will stop the agencies from legislating and restore the Constitution's proper "separation of powers.".
Congress make the rules. The agencies follow. Duh. @@kahanakahuna1470
@@kahanakahuna1470 Federal agency are creature of congress though. Which the executive have to enforce the laws.
@kahanakahuna1470 the congress created these agencies to do exactly what they are doing, you moe-ron. And yes, the constitution gives congress this authority.
Why does your side always say, "unelected", like people aren't allowed to be in a job where they were appointed or simply hired for it??
Didn’t Congress pass the laws that vest regulatory power to these agencies? Does the Supreme Court think every minutia of policy have to be done by revising every statute annually? Thats sound impossible.
What happened to not legislating from the bench? Isn’t that a conservative cornerstone?
Corporations now own SCOTUS , thanks to Trump , McConnell and the Federalist Society !
Only when it's (Democratic Party) 'activist judges'
For the conservative SCOTUS justices, it’s not about earnest legal interpretation. It’s about accomplishing the right-wing agenda.
"Movement Conservatives" have no cornerstone other than 1) Hate racial minorities and poor people, and 2) Enrich the wealthy at all cost.
Liberals are upset, they are losing, their career officals that control the "Deep state" ( career activist in our institutions), they remain the same under both administration's.
I work every day to make sure everyone, especially young new voters understand, the vote is all we have!
Blue Fascists
The use of "personal principle" was cited in the Dobbs decision as a basis for the decision, throwing impartiality out the window.
Chevron gives too much power to federal agencies, sure they are experts like the EPA, but if legislation is ambiguous they should not be interpreting what their authority is, thats for the judicial branch or Congress to clear up.
*We need a method to have Checks & Balances of the SCOTUS!!!* [FACT!] *ALWAYS VOTE BLUE!!!* 💙💙💙
Nasty Nancy pelosi removal of checks and balances is why our debt jump
The Constitution gives sole legislative power to Congress. Federal agencies unconstitutionally make "regulations" that are de facto "laws," with civil and/or criminal penalties. (The Constitution does not give Congress the power to delegate its law-making authority to unelected bureaucrats in executive branch federal agencies.). Hopefully, SCOTUS will stop the agencies from legislating and restore the Constitution's proper "separation of powers.". Vote Red.
These people are too far gone. It's time, brother. Only YOU can prevent forest fires.@@kahanakahuna1470
"Always" vote blue?
No.
Yes vote blue. Especially if you want to be broke and have no say in government.
Republicans miss the freedom of the Industrial Revolution and Sinclair's _The Jungle._
Biden feared a"racial jungle."
Exactly
Biden needs to pack the Court. 15 Justices sounds good
_Unpack._
Traitor McConnell and others packed it with an illegitimate supermajority.
_Unpack._
Not pack.
Republicans packed the court already.
_Unpack_ the court.
Mitch McConnell and the Republican party have already packed it without the consent of the American people.
Unpack. Not pack. It's already been packed by the GOP.
When we win all three branches in 2024 it’s time for Biden to appoint at least 3 new judges to the Supreme Court and make it balanced again
That’s not how it works.
POTUS can’t just randomly appoint people to SCOTUS.
@@dontewashington3250The Constitution doesn't stipulate the number of justices. There's nothing to stop a President and Congress from adding as many as they wish. (I specify "and Congress" because I think there's a law that currently sets it at nine.)
@@dontewashington3250Really how does it work? No Justices appointed in election year?
The unelected bureaucrats have supreme power now . That sounds worse
If judges can play doctors why shouldn't be allowed to determine what's safe for the public and the environment? Experts are called experts for a reason, judges are not experts except in law, and i question that many times.
"Experts" are nothing but contractors that follow the gov money, so, of course, give the answers that are going to get them even more work... learn some human nature.
I always enjoy listening to you Ellie. Hopefully, once the Supreme Court has established ethics and abides by them there will be some improvement.
Maybe these unelected bureaucrats should take part in writing the legislation instead of making it up as they go.
The Constitution gives sole legislative power to Congress. Federal agencies unconstitutionally make "regulations" that are de facto "laws," with civil and/or criminal penalties. (The Constitution does not give Congress the power to delegate its law-making authority to unelected bureaucrats in executive branch federal agencies.). Hopefully, SCOTUS will stop the agencies from legislating and restore the Constitution's proper "separation of powers.".
@@kahanakahuna1470 My point was, why right ambiguous legislation? Congress can have experts testify to clarify any ambiguities prior to writing any legislation
@@michaelmurphy6195because congress neither has the time nor the possibility to think about every possible outcome
@@JCB576 Then don’t pass ambiguous legislation!
@@michaelmurphy6195 It isn't a problem of ambigiouity but much rather beeing impossible to see every future scenario
The supreme Court needs to be dismantled and dismantled now😠
President Biden just needs to step up and appoint 3 or 4 more justices to counter the corrupt ones that are on there now. Maybe he could do that soon.
I would go for a reboot. Make it fair, replace 5 now and the other four in two years time.
A couple timely jammers would not bother me as long as Biden can pick their replacements.
Your instant reactions are not a way to run a country, give it a break already... your just doing that to get people worked up and like you.
@@malachi- *You're 😉 Perhaps Trump can loan you some money for your education.
We don't get to vote for bureaucrats either...
Time to harness the conservative justices and fast,
First statement out of Mistal's mouth was a lie. We have no say in what congress does. He's naive.
Again it is time to appoint more judge’s to Supreme Court. Then pass ethic standards for the Supreme Court. Then investigate the corrupt judges and then charge those judges with crimes if they don’t resign. VOTE BLUE BABY 💙
Roe all over again....What next???
The invention of the wheel.
What’s next? Are they going to ban oxygen? How will we survive? Surely Biden and Pelosi will save us. We can’t vote for anyone else because democracy depends on us voting for who they tell us to.
No way. These people are beyond words.
I am actually more worried about the fact the regular folks (non wealthy) will not be able to afford to bring cases against corporations. Regulations are often about safety to the public in general. Corporations have bean counters deciding everyday doing cost benefit analysis, and safety is a cost to corporations. Just think about trying to prove that Ford didn’t do enough to prevent a car from a fatal malfunction when there are no standards or testing requirements and the government has no role to play.
Government v big business is one of our checks and balances and this balance requires constant tending for fairness.
🎯🎯🎯
This is a nightmare.
How? Regulatory agencies shouldn't be making laws.
@@nunyuhbusiness9016 She doesn't even know what's going on, like most of them, she just want to belong to the me-me-me-now group.
Interesting how conservative justices love to look for opportunities to overturn long-established legal doctrines.
Well, America has been in a long-established state of decline, so I think they have the right idea!
As you eagerly knock out the supports underpinning the country’s wealth in an attempt to recapture some lost golden age that never was, could you please leave the rest of us out of it?
@@joedellinger9437 These regulatory agencies are corporate lobbyists who are accelerating the demise.
Doctrines that have been abused for decades, the Federal Agencies cannot dictate how the laws are interpreted to their favor.
Most of you don't even know what the the case is really about, just a bunch of people fed by the media with shock and awe one-liners.
40 years? literally the old craps we hate now were still in power back then.
"How many 3-headed fish ..."? Elie Mystal makes the point beautifully if disturbingly.
It is now the supreme Rort…..vote blue to even it up, so it can operate honestly and represent the American people
Lawmakers could self impose the Chevron easily and don't need the judges. This can be done by not only writing the law, but also having a subsection to any law that specifically spells out all the ways the law CANNOT be interpreted. This removes any and all future misinterpretations from any judge on any bench. It ties their hands completely. Which is the way it should be done.
…but it won’t happen. Too grey an area. In an ideal world maybe but we don’t live in that reality
I think it's about time for the Executive branch to tell the Supreme Court, "Nice ruling you made there. Now try to enforce it."
Only for them to lose every single case that arises due to that.
The 2 cases that are referred to are not about scientific expertise but rather what the law means: does the law allow the EPA to force monitors on fishing vessels and force those companies to pay for the monitors at 50% of the boat's profit from the catch? The answer would be no, but Chevron allows the agencies to effectively change the scope of a law where there are no concerns with respect to scientific expertise.
Now, if the fishing companies win this case, how would the government ignore this case? Would they still force companies to pay for monitors as well as house them? if so, and the companies refuse to do so, they go back to court, where the government would inevitably lose again.
Hope this helps.
It's like you don't even care about our democracy.
@@NELXMUSIC BAM! It's in there, thanks.
The fact that regulators only being able to operate within the law is “an end to regulation as we know it” tells you all you need to know.
Come on, fellow Americans, nothing matters except you and me VOTING!
Which is why I'm voting Republican this time around. Democrats have gone way too far left for me.
Ah,a lifetime of listening to the feigned indignation about "activist" judges: only to have the top court in the land stacked with at least 6 "partisans". So...please...spare me.
There’s a problem with “… essentially, ask the experts” as agencies aren’t always the experts despite thinking they’re the experts.
I was one of the lucky ones that got my student loan debt forgiven. Thank you President Biden for finding a work around and living up to your campaign promise. This is why I vote blue. 💙💙
Totally illegal. BTW. but with no one buying out paper at treasury auctions they have to print money for SOMETHING!
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
“Congress is sometimes incompetent.”
I agree. But, you think individuals within these agencies aren’t?
Love to hear Elie Mystal break it down!
No one is taking power away. That power was always theirs. Chevron Deference was an experiment
Massive increase in workload for the SC if they do this. They'd have to rule on every last little administrative decision.
Yes, good point. Every little regulatory detail (like the limit on "3-headed fishes") will be appealed to the appellate courts and ultimately the SC.
Maybe it's time to take away that "lifetime" thing. No one does so good at a job that they can or should do it forever
i like how she mispronounces the title of his book and he goes "ehhh, close enough...."
Oh my god. Is there no end to the disasters?
Yes! End the abuses of an onerous federal government where un-elected bureaucrats dictate to us how to live every aspect of our lives! The Founding Fathers never envisioned such a powerful central government!*
The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that would change with the times, not one that would be beholden to their 18th century ideals.
They can’t get their work done on a timely matter how can they add more work to the schedule?
well I guess they will have to do what we all do. Prioritize, and work longer and harder. Maybe only one taxpayer funded martini lunch a week. Maybe only one glad handing "meeting" a month. and hey how about this only two weeks of vacation a year! Just like everyone else.
Term limits for SCOTUS
Simple solution, grab the power back by voting blue then codify Chevron along with Roe.
How do we get balance back in the Supreme Court??
🌏🇺🇸🌈✅🦾↕️🔄↕️🦾. I’m Just ☕️Saying 2024✅💫🫵🏽🎁🫵🏽🔄💫👁️🌈👁️✅ Grand rising, this message is for all of US . All together we can’❤✅🌈🫵🏽make this make some sense. ☕️✅☕️👁️👁️👁️J6🐝🪞1 million 😭people…….glory be to God’s 🫵🏽🌈🏃🏻♀️✅👁️🫵🏽👁️💫Grace ✅
It seems like this could really overwhelm the court system because not only could all 17,000 decided cases be re-tried, all the similar cases that nobody bothered to bring in the first place will move forward. Once this onslaught of cases comes, it will eliminate plenty of regulations. While some businesses will benefit from less regulation, it often protects our health and safety.
No. Congress could follow the Constitution and the BOR simple test each bill against it. If it violates any of it. Its gone. They don't do much there so they have plenty of time to actually do their jobs.
Good grief, just because the gov has been acting outside the constitution for years, doesn’t mean it should be allowed to continue.
You obviously don't get it - 12 people with no knowledge are in charge now & they will be making new regulations and depending on your realm of influence which I'm guessing is 0- you no longer have any say !
Isn't it past time to expand the Supreme Court?
This is why you have to vote for the lesser of two evils in presidential elections. I wanted Bernie Sanders to be president, but when it came down to Trump vs. Hillary Clinton, neither of whom I liked, I voted for Clinton because I knew she would nominate better Supreme Court Justices than Trump and his extremist right wing backers. Unfortunately, too many "Bernie Bros" decided to protest by not casting votes at all. That's how Trump won in 2016 and why we now have an activist right wing Supreme Court.
Kind of a shame that the dem process for choosing the candidate is not all democratic. The super delegates (who are all party insiders) choose. That entire process is a sham.
@@redink71 - I agree. It's BS. Winner should be decided by the number of votes, period. Same for presidential elections. The electoral college essentially robs people of their votes.
If Q-Tip is upset, I am all for it.
Experts should collaborate with congress to pass the laws and let justice apply the laws. No middle man needed to apply the law, many of this agencies only do what’s best for corporations! They haven’t even remove food ingredients banned in Europe, they only collect fees that the government will use to finance wars.
Imagine all those companies offering free 'seminars' to 'study' this or that regulation in luxurious hotels to judges. It opens the pathway for corruption of the courts.
I want the experts determining ppm of contamination in my air, water , food and medicine not the Supreme Court .
Supreme Court Justices should be voted in by We the people ! Lifetime appointed Justices is putting them above the law !
We know how that will end.they always stand by cooperations.
Never in my life have I ever seen a corrupt Supreme Court in America like this one.This is sad..
Ellie Mystal is an EXCELLENT communicator. He breaks things down so aptly & packages them in a way that keeps you interested.
Doesnt Congresses annual funding of each these Agencies domonstrate Implicite and Explicite Delegation of Authority to those Agencies? -What about the supreme courts view on "The American Trucking Associations v. EPA" in 2010? - What have they changed in the 23 years since the "COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM" in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (106th CONGRESS)?
Never get enough of Mystal-. He's so brilliant & explains legal issues in a way the rest of us non-lawyers can actually understand. ighly recommend Mystals's book "Allow Me To Retort".
The Dems need to consolidate what power they have left and get the message to all Americans
Chevron Deference should be abolished
Biden has to unpack that court
Ellie is awesome, making you realise who is really in power, the power you ,as citizens didn’t vote for, listen to Ellie making sense!
This makes no sense. If you think we get to vote for the EPA because it is run by appointees of the president, you should likewise think we got to vote for the Supreme Court because all of them are appointed by a president.
They go when the American public votes for a president from a different party, doi
With the passage of Citizens United v USA the only wat to take the power back would be to overturn the case or start showing up the executives' homes.
Why should I allow so called specialist tell me the law while they bend it this a win for individuals that have been not able to hold these agencies have gotten away for well to long
We get the judges we deserve. We vote into office little men and women who appoint little men and women to offices (like the EPA) and to high courts. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
Wow freedom to choose is going right out the window.
Choose? Choose what?
Two words. Term limits ! NOW!😤😡
Sounds like time to change our Supreme Court functions! Vote BLUE
Federal agencies making rules aren’t rules , but law. It’s our congress who are required to make laws. Forcing a business to take on federal agents and making them pay for them is tyrannical. When I think of reducing government, I think of reducing the powers these agencies have given themselves.
More Elie, everywhere 🧠👏🏽💗
Time to change some Judges!!!!!!!!! The President should tell the court that is they do this the Congress will make some changes of their own.
As a German I don't understand exactly what this is all about, but I love the way Elie Ying Mystal explains it. ❤
Congress writes laws and agencies make rules to IMPLEMENT those laws. In practice, though, agencies try to de facto write their own laws using those rules. Mystal doesn't understand this or is too deeply into leftist rhetoric to understand.
You don’t get to vote for any of these agencies!
And the days shall grow more and more evil eveyday shall be more evil than the day before
Are justice system is broken.
It certainly is. We have many many DA (mostly in blue areas) who refuse to prosecute clear crime of all kinds! Thereby aiding and abetting illegal activity. That in itself is a crime.
This... This is not a problem at all. It SUPPOSED to work like this. The other thing... Not so much.
They will do it, no matter what. Only by packing the court will sanity return.
Yeah, FDR tried that and he almost lost reelection and the policies that were actually good for the American citizens.
Then the next party will pack it again until there is such a huge court its worthless. That si not the answer. The answer is to follow the law as written and for each congress to pass laws properly and do their job.
"The Supremes" lol I ❤ Katie
With a 6-3 majority, the conservative Supreme Court will continue to consolidate power. A supreme court that doesn't represent the majority of America. That's why it's so important for everyone to keep voting. That's how they do it.
Its not their job or place to "represent the majority of America." Good lord! in fact its no one job to represent the majority of America. In fact No one is to represent the majority of America. Their job all of them from Congress to the Supreme Court is to UPHOLD THE LAW! because THAT is what protects your rights. Not a majority.
Believe me you do not want to live in a place where 51% can remove the rights of 49% I'm telling you you don't. Think about it.
First, swamp the justice system with technical lawsuits. Second, Congress should restrict all justice system funding. DEAL WITH IT CLOWNS
I honestly think the real conservative power players don’t give 2 Fs about the spectacle that is Trump. In fact, the chaos just distracts from the real power grabs.
We know what this Supreme Court thinks of precedents that have been around for 40 or 50 years, that they don't like.
VOTE BLUE. PACK THE COURT. DILUTE THEIR POWER.