And that's a good thing!? We have to re-litigate decades of settled law, and now the unelected Court will decide instead of the elected Administration!!
@@Dan-sc7ussettled law doesn’t mean it passed constitutional muster. Any rule that has the force of law is, on its face, unconstitutional. Any law repugnant to the constitution is null and void and should face nullification by the people and the states. This is an end to agency tyranny and political overreach. 👏🏼👏🏼
@@Dan-sc7us Yes! It's a fantastic thing! Almost all of that "Settled law" (there's really no such thing) was unconstitutional. This allows "The People" to regain the power they were supposed to have during that 40 years. Our system of government is, we directly vote for someone to represent our interests. That person passes laws in our name. Then the executive branch carries out those laws. Chevron gave the executive branch the power to make laws out of thin air. It bypassed the people's vote by bypassing Congress. This ruling returns power to the people. What's the problem with that? You don't like Democracy or something?
@@Dan-sc7usyou don't continue building on a broken foundation. Eventually it cracks and the house falls. The only remedy is to tear it down and restart. Rot doesn't just go away because you ignore it
Not ruling against anything except tyranny. Ruling FOR the constitution. A vague law is supposed to be unconstitutional, not rewritten to suit the government.
Correct. "Rewritten" or "interpreted" by unelected bureaucrats on behalf of the government. If a law is vague, then Congress should re-write it on behalf of the people.
Yes, time for congress to start doing their job. Instead of the courts having to sort it all out their needs to be a mechanism for the courts to return issues to congress and force them to finish the job of defining what their intent was in laws they pass.
What's so mind-boggling about this statement is that the Constitution is very broad and ambiguous. It is so broad that the court gave itself the ability to do judicial review. The court never had the strict textual constitutional power to strike down Chevron in the same manner it never had the constitutional power to uphold it either.
I can't believe they just showed a graphic of Chevron stock in the middle of this story, as if the story is at all related to how well the stock is doing or is going to do! 😂😂😂
@@janetbaker7848 You can say it's all about _money,_ but if you think it's all about Chevron stock then you are just outing yourself as being completely clueless. 😂
@@mizzury54 That's what the courts are for. They decide what Congress was trying to say. If it's not clear enough for the courts to figure out, Congress can write a new law.
@mandoole Which is why a bad law goes back to Congress. If it's so bad that it's unenforceable, it will simply be struck down. Congress can rewrite it with the new instructions, or give up on that particular regulation.
Fundamentally, it comes down to Congress overseeing and approving regulations that directly affects the public. It'll be similar to how city agenices work, they can't make decisions, that directly affects the public, without council approval.
@@investordangdaniel the atf is a terrorist organization that specializes in unaliving dogs and little children (see Waco). Now SAY HIS NAME - Bryan Malinowski
You are literally cheering on the remaking of the USA into a 3rd world country. Are you even aware that the Chevron Doctrine was created by a Republican majority court in Reagan’s first term? The Roberts court is turning the USA into an oligarchy. You’re too blind to see it.
A great ruling. If the Agency thinks the laws created by Congress (the ONLY Body that Constitutionally is allowed to create the Bills that become Laws) are too vague, they should either petition Congress to address the issue or be part of the process advising Congress on what the language of the Law should be to make it effective. An Agency that uses a laws "vagueness" to create restrictions on the Citizenry no longer has the Citizens best interest in mind and is only seeking to further its own power and scope of influence.
@@jerryhicks9025yes we do, because that is what the Constitution says should be done. You know, experts weren't outlawed. They were made advisers rather than lawmakers and enforcers. If you want nation ruled by experts then found another country.
Great, let’s leave every single one of our specific consumer protections in the hands of these lazy congress critters! That sounds like an excellent idea!
You are ignorant of what government regulators do. Do you know what a hydrogelogist does at a toxic waste site? Do you think a judge knows? Or any politician? You are literally watching this far right wing Supreme Court turn the USA into a 3rd world country.
So unelected officials are no longer granted broad bands of power and now need the elected officials, representing their constituents, to make me regulations? Where is the down side?
well they can't remove 2 regulations for every new one they write. More interesting is what happens to the 100,000 pages of regulations they created that congress never wrote. EPA might be manageable if we go back to the law Nixon law. The EPA CREATES toxic waste sights, they don't clean them up. We have more now than we had when there was no epa giving cover to government contractors.
This is a big ruling for Chevron, Shell, Blackrock, Microsoft, Rio Tinto, Big Oil-Pharma-Mining, Banking and Wall Street. This is going to do to business what Citizens United did to politics...the people and environment be damned. 🤬
I think it might actually do the opposite of what citizens united did. Think of all the FDA employees that go to work for Big Pharma. Maybe I’m missing something.
Oh no, more freedom. Yikes, how terrible. What were the founders and writers of the Constitution of the United States thinking leaving three branches of the government elected by the people. The smart unelected elite should be making all the laws.
@@Mrjonnyjonjon123 Why> Just because you have the right to a trial, doesn't mean you have to use it. You can agree with the epa when they say hand over your gas stove. You don't have to take them to court and keep it.
The biggest consequence of this decision is that more tax payer money will be spent by agencies fighting in court rather than on stuff people actually care about
@Mrjonnyjonjon123 Not even a little bit. All this decision means is Congress has to slow down and take their jobs seriously. They have to pay attention, and write deliberate, specific law. No more "write whatever, let the bureaucrats figure it out." This ruling quite literally just makes congress have to do their job. No more and no less. Your unreasonable doomsaying is quite humorous however. Taking power from unelected bureaucrats is about the most American, constitutional thing possible. E: realized I had not addressed the poster I intended to reply to.
The Chevron Doctrine was created by a Republican majority court in 1984. Today’s Roberts court is fascist. Enjoy the more dangerous and unhealthy plutocracy you’ve wished upon yourself and the rest of us.
@@daniellemarie7471 regulations are in place for a reason. Often to keep people safe, otherwise companies will dump toxic waste right next to neighborhoods.
How could anyone who loves freedom, who treasures liberty, who despises authoritarianism, not love this court and its recent rulings? The exception is the harsh blow they dealt the 1st amendment with that bar-raising of who has standing...everything else seems to be pulling back the abuse of authority that executive branches have been going crazy with these last 50+ yrs, and telling Congress that it needs to write laws that are detailed enough to know what their intent was and stop passing the actual rulemaking off to the executive branch and their agencies. If you're a Libertarian, you have to be cheering from the top of the rafters today from the wonderful session this has been.
How is this less authoritarian. Instead of agencies now courts have total discretion in interpreting vague law however they please. From one branch to another
@@that_review_guy Now you have lawyers evaluating laws. All the judge is supposed to do is be convinced and collect a check. Referring to federal agency to explain things is a no go.
Okay cool if you don't want regulation on medicine on climate crisis on weather on science then you can live with the consequences the problem is we all have to live with those consequences now we're screwed
Okay, agencies were reigned in, but the Court now has the power! The rules will be made by someone, and now it will be the unelected Court instead of the elected Agency heads!! You've been duped!
That all these agencies testified in hearing they know nothing about what their agency does proves chevron was bad. they are more ignorant than congress.
@@richarddavis3980 How are you screwed? You are lucky to be alive with them forcing you to be a lab rat with untested medicine. As for climate. When I see biden riding a bike, and pelosi taking the train back home I'll listen. Where has cliimate changed anywhere on the globe? No floods in the Sahara, No tsunamis in Kansas, No forest fires in the everglades. That the climate experts think water level rises when ice melts shows they are snake oil salesmen. Water lever would go down if the polar cap melted.
I had a reply to my comment that said I’m less free today because the Court restricted rouge government agencies from taking away my freedom. I’m 70, went to college when they taught civics. Someone explain how making congress make law makes me less free. The founding fathers designed congress to make it difficult to pass law. So explain again how restricting some agency from making laws makes me less free. Congress can no longer hide behind “ we did not do not.” The what ever agency did it.
Amazing! Now the agency can stop trying to make law and leave that to congress. The rule of Lenity will now be used as it should. With ambiguity in their laws, the defendants should get the benefit and not the alphabet agencies!!
It’s not gonna be congress. It is now up to the courts discretion for any vague law no matter how technical or how much expertise is required to even understand.
@@marquel5018 No, that isn't true. The courts will define what is written with deference to the citizen, not the govt. In cases in which the law isn't clear, it gets tossed and The Legislative Branch gets to decide to either rewrite it to better communicate its intent or let it die and no longer be a law. The moment that 2 different courts come to 2 different conclusions about what the law is, it gets escalated to a higher court, and when the Higher court finds it unmanageable, they toss the law.
This isn't true. Not exactly. This video is extremely poor at explaining it, probably trying to get people politically riled up. Executive agencies can still interpret laws and can still essentially write laws. It's just that now they can't evade judicial review. Before they had a get out of jail free card and the courts had to give the agencies deference. The courts doesn't have a say on a lot of issues even if it does get judicially reviewed unless it hits constitutional problems. Also there's no guarantee the courts would side with you. It's not like executive agencies are suddenly gutted. It just means they can be judicially reviewed.
@@jamesricker3997 bump stocks, pistol braces, frames and receivers and force reset triggers all fall under Chevron. And that's just the very recent stuff.
@@jamesricker3997 this affects every agency including the ATF. They did say this ruling will NOT call in to question previous rulings that use Chevron.
Right, because we need uneducated geriatrics that know NOTHING about an industry rather than EXPERTS deciding what’s good for the people. Youre mental bud
@@Dan-sc7us No, Congress makes the rules. If they are "vague" then it's the courts job to kick it back to Congress to fix. It's called Separation of Powers and it is the foundation of the Constitution.
@@terryevans1976 No, Congress empowers agencies to make rules! Congressional statutes are overly broad on purpose because Congress are not experts on everything, and some would argue, on anything!!
And what does applying and interpreting regulatory law to complex situations have to do with cohesion? Do you know anyone who is a regulatory expert? My brother in law is a hrdrogeologist for EPA superfund sites. To think a partisan judge from the Federalist Society will dictate to him his own science is disgusting. Does it matter to you geniuses at all that the Chevron Doctrine was created by a Republican Supreme Court under Ronald Reagan??? That was before Republican jurists took bribes.
Chevron had allowed the executive branch to work around Congress, adjusting regulations without a vote. Chevron violated the separation of powers. Only the legislative branch can make laws/regulations.
I don’t like how the journalist kept saying it puts decisions back into the courts, it was meant to have the legislature update laws which only they can do., the people’s representatives.
The separation of powers was is of paramount importance in keeping a government from becoming a tyrannical dictatorship. The U.S. Constitution actually has two different separations to assist with this goal, the three branches as well as federal versus state powers.
One of the major protections against Federal power has been the requirement that the CONGRESS pass all laws. It's tough to pass laws, and that was designed into the constitution. The Chevron decision gave the courts and executive agencies the power to bypass the requirement that the Congress pass laws, and that has given the Deep State enormous power they should never have had. I hope this decision returns to the Congress the power and authority they have to pass all laws, and that executive agencies are effectively shorn of their power to pass laws on their own.
Very incomplete, irresponsible journalism (excerpt) on Bloomberg’s part. If you are “reporting” a significant ruling from the US Supreme Court, the least you should do is provide the numerical facts of the ruling (ie: 5-4, 6-3, who knows?). Furthermore, would it pain you to indicate the court members who ruled one way or the other? Sheesh. 🤷🏾♀️
I love how they describe an unconstituonal grab of power by the exective branch over the rule of law as "regulation.". It is simply an authoritarianism.
@@michael-gx2sv Lol. It's easy to pick out who's all been getting their info from the same exact sources. Anyone reegurgitating any firm of the line "This is a power grab by SCOTUS.", is 100% an NPC. All this decision does is make Congress have to do their job. No more phoning it in. No more "Write whatever, let the bureaucrats figure it out." They now have to slow down, focus, and write deliberate and specific law. In no way is this ruling bad.
The entire corpus of world history reveals human motivation as wealth/power warps and congeals. There's no getting around it. Do what you can, whatever you can.
Hopefully this gets the pistol brace ruling tossed out. Designed to allow folks with physical issues safely hold and fire a pistol. First they were legal, now they are illegal.
A law enforcement agency has no business passing rules that can make a citizen a felon and be put in prison! Furthermore, congress has no authority under our Constitution to pass laws against what arms we as a free people are allowed to have. We are the militia, so we have the right to the same weapons as our military and law enforcement, or we are servants to them instead of them being our servants. How about they just use their resources to go after the actual criminals and gangs in the cities instead of the law abiding who only want the ability to defend themselves! We are not free when the police can arrest someone for simply possessing the same weapons they have and never harmed anyone with them.
Purple is illegal. Red and blue make purple or so they are also illegal. Anything that make red or blue is also illegal. Also pictures or recipes for red blue or purple are also illegal. Orange? That looks red. That’s also illegal.
This is a good thing. Congress is supposed to make laws not unelected bureaucrats. I can't believe how people can't see the danger of allowing federal agencies to have near absolute power
Bureaucrats should never be allowed to make law, only propose law to Congress. The regulators overreached and the Supreme Court slapped them down. Good.
@@jexy_marshall I agree, it's going to force Congress to actually do their job in overseeing the agencies and approve anything that can have far reachig affects.
Basically, the government was trying to use a rule that does not apply to what they’re trying to use it for and was pretty much made for Enron or Chevron, so the court went nope
The Old Constitution rules as it should. No more making up rules to turn your political opponents into criminals. Bureaucracies be damned for the illegal tyrants they represent. We the People persevere... Thank you SCOTUS for recognizing our Constitution. 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲 vs 🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳!!
To prevent any branch of government becoming too powerful, powers were separated: Congress writes laws, the Executive branch approves them, and the Supreme Court interprets laws. In 1984 the Supreme Court (with three Justices absent) wrote a decision known as the "Chevron decision", which combined all powers under the Executive branch. The President and his staff now had authority to write laws and interpret them, without the other branches of government. Today's Supreme Court decision weakens the Chevron decision, which helps to restore the separation of powers.
This is the first step of putting corporate America on a short leash. It's they cooperate with the party they are free to do as they please. If they do anything that displeases the party or a competitor with stronger connections to the party, they will suddenly find themselves subject to regulations.
One of the most important decisions of this nation's history. That said, agencies will still be able to regulate, they will just have to hew much closer to the authorizing legislation (and that's a very good thing).
Excellent. Many of these unelected agencies should be disbanded. Federal govt needs to go back to what it was meant to be. Speaking of SEC… it would’ve been nice if they watched congressional members from turning into millionaires by trading on info that should not be used.
That would be the best way to make everyone millionaires. Let us just enter the same stock option as out reps. Pelosi buys stock, we get the same stock buy in. She dump it before bringing legislation to the floor, ours get dumped. Not even insider trading since we have no idea she was doing it.
Back in the day we had lead in the paint, lead in the gasoline, asbestos everywhere, and the rivers catching fire. That's how things are SUPPOSED to be. We must go back to those times.
@@PURENT Milwaukie poisoned a third of the city with contaminated water WITH your beloved epa. Entire town in Hawaii was burned to the ground with your EPA. Detroit has lead in their water lines, no one forced anyone to lick the paint on their a walls. Try going without water. Lets not forget all the kids harmed by the EPA forcing schools to remove asbestos that was not a danger to anyone. How many have been killed by your hack agencies mandate cars have claymores in the steering wheels? No crazy mandate like that would ever get though congress.
Great ruling. Agencies have no business interpreting laws. Put back on the legislation and if they don’t do it, then it’s not a law and it defaults back to individual. freedom and liberty, which it was always supposed to be. Too much government regulation in everything.
So do Americans who do not like food poisoning or carcinogens in the drinking water. Combined with project 2025 would give Republicans unprecedented control over free enterprise. It allows the Judiciary to prosecute any company that does not bow to the party.
@@jamesricker3997 dems overstepped by forcing emission and electric cars down our throats. The next thing they need to do is make SMOG CHECKS unconstitutional.
Why did they say the enron (j6) decision hadn't been given yet.. and are waiting on that one to come out Monday? They already decided that one!! (Correctly, I might add)
Agencies = Unelected bureaucrats. Bureaucrat: an official in a government department, in particular one perceived as being concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people's needs. This is a win.
This is fantastic news! Make congress do their jobs! No more environment activist making small farmers, loggers, truck drivers and fishermen to take the brunt of this.
Executive order, all supreme court decisions must be televised. I want to see their faces when handing down all of these decisions. Seeing and hearing everything they are saying may help us
So now the farmer who wants to put aside some acreage and sow a different seed to feed his cattle and family can now do so. This Chevron ruling restore the American Dream and our right of self determination, happiness, and well-being. This was needed.
This is so wonderful, Bureaucracy had become the fourth and most powerful branch of government, Trump had been trying to rein in Bureaucracy and his Justice picks did the job for him. The idea the Bureaucrats can create laws and penalties by decree is unamerican, unconstitutional, an abuse of power. Now we need budget cuts that cuts down the size of Bureaucracy to reduce the deficit.
If you like lead poisoning, food poisoning, unsafe planes, toxic companies in your back yard, un democratic unscrupulous lower courts deciding how much cancer causing chemicals are in your water, this is a great day for you.
1:54 So unless Congress continues to not write more clear laws, it goes to the courts. So, Congress should write more clear laws so that it doesn't go to the courts. Easy.
The congress could amend the law in question to make it more clear. She mentioned the EPA, they can do great things but they could also say my ICE car is illegal because it doesn`t reach zero emissions. There is nothing wrong with going back to court, what lawyer doesn`t want that. Or congress can right a law that is constitutional or clear so non elected people don`t impose laws on me that are unconstitutional.
I want to give an example of why this is a good decision. I left CA years ago because of so any regulation are put upon the people of that state. Each year the South Coast Air Quality board puts hundreds if not thousands of people out of work. I grew up in the LA basin in the 60s. I remember days on end when I could not see the mountains that were only a few miles away. With the regulations that were put in place the air is dramatically better. Now that no longer happens. Back to my point these days most of the pollution CA has is coming from China being blown across the Pacific by the trade winds. So in reality any further tightening of regulations is fruitless. Yet people are still being put out of work! If you think that I’m full of it just think back a couple of years to the Chinese spy balloons and before that the Japanese bombs that made it as far as the mid-west during WW2.
People are not going to be happy as things starts collapsing. Without regulation the producers are not required to have any standards and can pass on low quality and hazardous products to consumers. In a few years there will a public outcry and harder regulations might come back.
If consumers are hurt, then companies get sued. Businesses cannot survive without consumers or by losing lots of money in court costs. The market will determine quality and safety.
@@n.d.m.515 ah yes, product A cause's cancer, by the time meaningful legislation is through the system(which will get challenged in court) the damage is done. You reap what you sow.
I guess it means you can hope they reinstate your activist judge ruling that blacks are property. I wouldn't hold my breath. But the court can't rule on a case until it is brought in front of them. No one forced planned parenthood to take the case to the court. Same with chevron, agency could have said, our bad we can't do that and there would be no case.
Courts overturn old rulings all the time. Nothing wrong with that. If courts ruled to the letter of the laws created by the elected representatives and held to rhe wirding of the constitution then they would never need to. We can agree that the constitution needs an update and that our elected representatives need to do their damn jobs, not just focus on turning a 175k a year salary into 20 million a year.
@robertsmith2956 Not all ammendments are bad. Some are unnecessary, such as the amendment abolishing slavery and the right for women to vote. The constitution was clear on equality and rights without those amendments. They were mainly prefunctary to underline a civil change to bring society in line with the constitution. The amendments on presidential term limits, succession, and incapacitation are needed. The amendment that sets voting age at 18 is okish, prolly needs to be more around 21, but that is my opinion. I would like to see the elction of senators go back to state appointment. That paricular amendment erroded state power and gave it to the federal. Plenty of additions need to be updated based on the new realities brought about by technology.
Nope. That would still be unconstitutional. They need to enforce the law as written and as directed by the elected president. Any conflicts over interpretation will take place in the courts or by Congress re-writing the law, as is proper
So now the courts have to rely on the law written by elected officials. Good thing the most recently elected Congress debates the bills before passage at a high intellectual level and all bills are very well thought out.
The congress should be writing clear and concise laws and not leaving it up to unelected bearcats to interpret the laws to suit whatever admin which is in office at the time or whatever the unelected decide.
But you can't write a law that will encompass all edge cases. Just look at IFRS and GAAP. GAAP tries to be rules based and is much, much bigger than IFRS that is more vague (I think aomething like 2 000 vs 20 000 pages). Imagine lawmakers having to write laws 10 times longer than what you have now and still missing edge cases. And I doubt any politician can be an expert on everything.
This is the biggest ruling this session. 40 years of case law just got tossed on its head.
The lower courts are going to be busy for a while.
And that's a good thing!? We have to re-litigate decades of settled law, and now the unelected Court will decide instead of the elected Administration!!
@@Dan-sc7ussettled law doesn’t mean it passed constitutional muster. Any rule that has the force of law is, on its face, unconstitutional. Any law repugnant to the constitution is null and void and should face nullification by the people and the states. This is an end to agency tyranny and political overreach.
👏🏼👏🏼
@@Dan-sc7us checks and balances...
@@Dan-sc7us Yes! It's a fantastic thing!
Almost all of that "Settled law" (there's really no such thing) was unconstitutional. This allows "The People" to regain the power they were supposed to have during that 40 years.
Our system of government is, we directly vote for someone to represent our interests. That person passes laws in our name. Then the executive branch carries out those laws.
Chevron gave the executive branch the power to make laws out of thin air. It bypassed the people's vote by bypassing Congress. This ruling returns power to the people.
What's the problem with that? You don't like Democracy or something?
@@Dan-sc7usyou don't continue building on a broken foundation. Eventually it cracks and the house falls. The only remedy is to tear it down and restart. Rot doesn't just go away because you ignore it
Not ruling against anything except tyranny. Ruling FOR the constitution. A vague law is supposed to be unconstitutional, not rewritten to suit the government.
So many laws are vague. Probably most of them
Correct. "Rewritten" or "interpreted" by unelected bureaucrats on behalf of the government. If a law is vague, then Congress should re-write it on behalf of the people.
Yes, time for congress to start doing their job. Instead of the courts having to sort it all out their needs to be a mechanism for the courts to return issues to congress and force them to finish the job of defining what their intent was in laws they pass.
What's so mind-boggling about this statement is that the Constitution is very broad and ambiguous. It is so broad that the court gave itself the ability to do judicial review. The court never had the strict textual constitutional power to strike down Chevron in the same manner it never had the constitutional power to uphold it either.
@mandoole Then why have congress ? or elections ? just let the agency make and enforce law as it deems fit.
The power of Executive orders also needs to be challenged. Congress makes laws, not Presidents nor agencies or corporations.
Exactly. I said that about every president in the last 30+ years.
I can't believe they just showed a graphic of Chevron stock in the middle of this story, as if the story is at all related to how well the stock is doing or is going to do! 😂😂😂
That is actually all that it's about for the people in power.
@@janetbaker7848 You can say it's all about _money,_ but if you think it's all about Chevron stock then you are just outing yourself as being completely clueless. 😂
@@janetbaker7848 this isn't about money, this is about executive overreach and the executive branch classifying law abiding citizens as criminals
I'm thinking about the windfall they are about to get suing over their oil leases they have been using rules to deny.
Good opinion from the Court. These agencies were interpreting law for their own purposes.
Correct. Chevron was their self-licking lollipop.
And it allowed for political abuse.
Massive win for the 2A! Bravo SCOTUS! BRAVO!!!
A massive loss for clean water and air
They shouldn't be able to use "their own interpretations" or "interpret their own authority" so this was the right call.
But the issue here is not the agencies, it's the incompetent Congress not being clear when they pass legislation.
@@mizzury54 it's not even about Congress not being clear, it's more the agencies twisting things to their advantage.
@@mizzury54 That's what the courts are for. They decide what Congress was trying to say. If it's not clear enough for the courts to figure out, Congress can write a new law.
@mandoole Which is why a bad law goes back to Congress. If it's so bad that it's unenforceable, it will simply be struck down. Congress can rewrite it with the new instructions, or give up on that particular regulation.
Fundamentally, it comes down to Congress overseeing and approving regulations that directly affects the public. It'll be similar to how city agenices work, they can't make decisions, that directly affects the public, without council approval.
Bring down the atf
What is the ATF and why is it important?
@@investordangdaniel the atf is a terrorist organization that specializes in unaliving dogs and little children (see Waco). Now SAY HIS NAME - Bryan Malinowski
You are literally cheering on the remaking of the USA into a 3rd world country. Are you even aware that the Chevron Doctrine was created by a Republican majority court in Reagan’s first term? The Roberts court is turning the USA into an oligarchy. You’re too blind to see it.
Absolutely 💯
@@investordangdaniel if you don't know, you shouldn't vote
A great ruling. If the Agency thinks the laws created by Congress (the ONLY Body that Constitutionally is allowed to create the Bills that become Laws) are too vague, they should either petition Congress to address the issue or be part of the process advising Congress on what the language of the Law should be to make it effective. An Agency that uses a laws "vagueness" to create restrictions on the Citizenry no longer has the Citizens best interest in mind and is only seeking to further its own power and scope of influence.
@@kellyj5610 do we really want the house of representatives to determine what parts per million is an acceptable level for specific carcinogens?
@@jerryhicks9025 Do we really want to disregard our constitution?
@@jacka55six60 you're avoiding the pragmatic ripple effect of having people without a science background making science based decisions
@@jerryhicks9025yes we do, because that is what the Constitution says should be done. You know, experts weren't outlawed. They were made advisers rather than lawmakers and enforcers. If you want nation ruled by experts then found another country.
@@n.d.m.515 lol at your idea of patriotism. Enjoy your flammable water, hope it doesn't burn your beloved flag.
Our lazy congress critters will actually have to write laws that are not vague. Oh the humanity!
Great, let’s leave every single one of our specific consumer protections in the hands of these lazy congress critters! That sounds like an excellent idea!
You are ignorant of what government regulators do. Do you know what a hydrogelogist does at a toxic waste site? Do you think a judge knows? Or any politician? You are literally watching this far right wing Supreme Court turn the USA into a 3rd world country.
@@benreiter7218 It’s better than having a bunch of activists masquerading as experts write federal regulations.
LIMITING GOVERNMENT POWER IS GOOOOOODDDD
you scum are just making companies the new government.
this expands federal power.......
So unelected officials are no longer granted broad bands of power and now need the elected officials, representing their constituents, to make me regulations? Where is the down side?
well they can't remove 2 regulations for every new one they write.
More interesting is what happens to the 100,000 pages of regulations they created that congress never wrote. EPA might be manageable if we go back to the law Nixon law.
The EPA CREATES toxic waste sights, they don't clean them up. We have more now than we had when there was no epa giving cover to government contractors.
This is a great day for the Constitution!!!!
This is a big ruling for Chevron, Shell, Blackrock, Microsoft, Rio Tinto, Big Oil-Pharma-Mining, Banking and Wall Street. This is going to do to business what Citizens United did to politics...the people and environment be damned. 🤬
I think it might actually do the opposite of what citizens united did.
Think of all the FDA employees that go to work for Big Pharma.
Maybe I’m missing something.
Oh no, more freedom. Yikes, how terrible. What were the founders and writers of the Constitution of the United States thinking leaving three branches of the government elected by the people. The smart unelected elite should be making all the laws.
I am 57 and this is best ruling for US citizens in my lifetime.
Yup and the worst decision for anyone younger than 40
@@Mrjonnyjonjon123 Why> Just because you have the right to a trial, doesn't mean you have to use it.
You can agree with the epa when they say hand over your gas stove. You don't have to take them to court and keep it.
The biggest consequence of this decision is that more tax payer money will be spent by agencies fighting in court rather than on stuff people actually care about
@Mrjonnyjonjon123
Not even a little bit. All this decision means is Congress has to slow down and take their jobs seriously. They have to pay attention, and write deliberate, specific law. No more "write whatever, let the bureaucrats figure it out."
This ruling quite literally just makes congress have to do their job. No more and no less. Your unreasonable doomsaying is quite humorous however.
Taking power from unelected bureaucrats is about the most American, constitutional thing possible.
E: realized I had not addressed the poster I intended to reply to.
@@robertsmith2956the EPA is not doing that lol
"Regulation without representation is no bueno." - Clarence Thomas, probably.
The Chevron Doctrine was created by a Republican majority court in 1984. Today’s Roberts court is fascist. Enjoy the more dangerous and unhealthy plutocracy you’ve wished upon yourself and the rest of us.
All Clarence Thomas says is "Where's my check?!" to Harlan Crow.
“F*ck your clean water” Clarence Thomas
This is very good. Agencies cannot directly interpret the constitution.
That's not what they were doing. They were interpreting vague laws written by Congress
@@davids.2703 you like high prices? That's what all these regulations cause
@@daniellemarie7471 regulations are in place for a reason. Often to keep people safe, otherwise companies will dump toxic waste right next to neighborhoods.
So who do you think would be best to make decisions about the safety of asbestos insulation? An expert on the material or a lawyer?
@@SuperlunarNimthe asbestos manufacturer
So glad that freedom has been defended. Congress not regulators make law!
It's actually putting the law in the hands of the court.
Your freedoms just took a big hit.
This country is going to shit
How could anyone who loves freedom, who treasures liberty, who despises authoritarianism, not love this court and its recent rulings? The exception is the harsh blow they dealt the 1st amendment with that bar-raising of who has standing...everything else seems to be pulling back the abuse of authority that executive branches have been going crazy with these last 50+ yrs, and telling Congress that it needs to write laws that are detailed enough to know what their intent was and stop passing the actual rulemaking off to the executive branch and their agencies.
If you're a Libertarian, you have to be cheering from the top of the rafters today from the wonderful session this has been.
Absolutely
How is this less authoritarian. Instead of agencies now courts have total discretion in interpreting vague law however they please. From one branch to another
@@marquel5018 Legislative - Makes laws (Congress)
Executive - Carries out laws (President, Vice President, Cabinet)
Judicial - Evaluates laws (Supreme Court and other courts)
@@that_review_guy Now you have lawyers evaluating laws. All the judge is supposed to do is be convinced and collect a check. Referring to federal agency to explain things is a no go.
@@PURENT 🤣🤣🤣
About time these agencies were reigned in. They've been runnung roughshod over constitutional rights using Cheveron.
Okay cool if you don't want regulation on medicine on climate crisis on weather on science then you can live with the consequences the problem is we all have to live with those consequences now we're screwed
Okay, agencies were reigned in, but the Court now has the power! The rules will be made by someone, and now it will be the unelected Court instead of the elected Agency heads!! You've been duped!
@@richarddavis3980or Congress can do their job.
That all these agencies testified in hearing they know nothing about what their agency does proves chevron was bad. they are more ignorant than congress.
@@richarddavis3980 How are you screwed? You are lucky to be alive with them forcing you to be a lab rat with untested medicine. As for climate. When I see biden riding a bike, and pelosi taking the train back home I'll listen.
Where has cliimate changed anywhere on the globe? No floods in the Sahara, No tsunamis in Kansas, No forest fires in the everglades. That the climate experts think water level rises when ice melts shows they are snake oil salesmen. Water lever would go down if the polar cap melted.
I had a reply to my comment that said I’m less free today because the Court restricted rouge government agencies from taking away my freedom. I’m 70, went to college when they taught civics. Someone explain how making congress make law makes me less free. The founding fathers designed congress to make it difficult to pass law. So explain again how restricting some agency from making laws makes me less free. Congress can no longer hide behind “ we did not do not.” The what ever agency did it.
Amazing! Now the agency can stop trying to make law and leave that to congress. The rule of Lenity will now be used as it should. With ambiguity in their laws, the defendants should get the benefit and not the alphabet agencies!!
It’s not gonna be congress. It is now up to the courts discretion for any vague law no matter how technical or how much expertise is required to even understand.
@@marquel5018 almost as if the Constitution before 40 years ago required it done that way.
@@marquel5018 No, that isn't true. The courts will define what is written with deference to the citizen, not the govt. In cases in which the law isn't clear, it gets tossed and The Legislative Branch gets to decide to either rewrite it to better communicate its intent or let it die and no longer be a law. The moment that 2 different courts come to 2 different conclusions about what the law is, it gets escalated to a higher court, and when the Higher court finds it unmanageable, they toss the law.
This is great. Agencies no longer get to write law. All the ATF cases where they write rules that are now somehow law are done.
Is this won't affect the ATF but will affect the EPA and FDA.
You might want to invest in drug companies that produce cancer treatments.
This isn't true. Not exactly. This video is extremely poor at explaining it, probably trying to get people politically riled up.
Executive agencies can still interpret laws and can still essentially write laws. It's just that now they can't evade judicial review. Before they had a get out of jail free card and the courts had to give the agencies deference.
The courts doesn't have a say on a lot of issues even if it does get judicially reviewed unless it hits constitutional problems. Also there's no guarantee the courts would side with you.
It's not like executive agencies are suddenly gutted. It just means they can be judicially reviewed.
@@jamesricker3997 bump stocks, pistol braces, frames and receivers and force reset triggers all fall under Chevron. And that's just the very recent stuff.
@@jamesricker3997 this affects every agency including the ATF. They did say this ruling will NOT call in to question previous rulings that use Chevron.
Right, because we need uneducated geriatrics that know NOTHING about an industry rather than EXPERTS deciding what’s good for the people. Youre mental bud
Hahahaha! Big middle finger to the alphabet soup agencies.
LOL! So now the Court makes the rules! What's the difference!? You've been duped!
Yep. Thank god.
@@Dan-sc7us No, Congress makes the rules. If they are "vague" then it's the courts job to kick it back to Congress to fix. It's called Separation of Powers and it is the foundation of the Constitution.
@@Dan-sc7usthis is what democracy looks like 😊
@@terryevans1976 No, Congress empowers agencies to make rules! Congressional statutes are overly broad on purpose because Congress are not experts on everything, and some would argue, on anything!!
Maybe if the 100 of lawyers cannot write a cohesive law it does not need to be a law.
And what does applying and interpreting regulatory law to complex situations have to do with cohesion? Do you know anyone who is a regulatory expert? My brother in law is a hrdrogeologist for EPA superfund sites. To think a partisan judge from the Federalist Society will dictate to him his own science is disgusting. Does it matter to you geniuses at all that the Chevron Doctrine was created by a Republican Supreme Court under Ronald Reagan??? That was before Republican jurists took bribes.
Chevron had allowed the executive branch to work around Congress, adjusting regulations without a vote. Chevron violated the separation of powers. Only the legislative branch can make laws/regulations.
Trial by a jury of peers regarding SEC violations… that does put an interesting spin on jury selection! 🙈🙉🙊
Does this mean the game stop short people will get their money the SEC said the shyters getting burned don't have to pay?
@@robertsmith2956 wasn’t there a similar issue with Berkshire Hathaway? I’m not an investor- just trying to sort the tossers!
@@HairyPinkTroll probably. They are wrong so often it is hard to say.
Good, make congress do their job and making the laws specific
Excellent!
This should result in actual downsizing government . Government Karen's will scream to Blue.
I don’t like how the journalist kept saying it puts decisions back into the courts, it was meant to have the legislature update laws which only they can do., the people’s representatives.
Jury trials are bad now?
The separation of powers was is of paramount importance in keeping a government from becoming a tyrannical dictatorship. The U.S. Constitution actually has two different separations to assist with this goal, the three branches as well as federal versus state powers.
One of the major protections against Federal power has been the requirement that the CONGRESS pass all laws. It's tough to pass laws, and that was designed into the constitution.
The Chevron decision gave the courts and executive agencies the power to bypass the requirement that the Congress pass laws, and that has given the Deep State enormous power they should never have had.
I hope this decision returns to the Congress the power and authority they have to pass all laws, and that executive agencies are effectively shorn of their power to pass laws on their own.
Very incomplete, irresponsible journalism (excerpt) on Bloomberg’s part. If you are “reporting” a significant ruling from the US Supreme Court, the least you should do is provide the numerical facts of the ruling (ie: 5-4, 6-3, who knows?). Furthermore, would it pain you to indicate the court members who ruled one way or the other? Sheesh. 🤷🏾♀️
the fact she seems salty about this decision makes me love it even more.
is bloomberg pigmy or DWARF
I love how they describe an unconstituonal grab of power by the exective branch over the rule of law as "regulation.". It is simply an authoritarianism.
Wow, law being followed instead of unelected bureaucrats. awesome!
LIKE.................The Supreme Court?
@@michael-gx2sv They were all duly appointed in accordance with the constitution. Now so the hacks in the EPA making up their own laws and justice.
@@michael-gx2sv
Lol. It's easy to pick out who's all been getting their info from the same exact sources. Anyone reegurgitating any firm of the line "This is a power grab by SCOTUS.", is 100% an NPC.
All this decision does is make Congress have to do their job. No more phoning it in. No more "Write whatever, let the bureaucrats figure it out."
They now have to slow down, focus, and write deliberate and specific law. In no way is this ruling bad.
@@michael-gx2sv I like this one.
@michael-gx2sv The Supreme Court interprets laws, doesn't make them. Do you need a lesson in civics?
The entire corpus of world history reveals human motivation as wealth/power warps and congeals. There's no getting around it. Do what you can, whatever you can.
Yes,, overreach of feds for years...🎉🎉🎆
Atf regulations?
Mashed potatoes!
Shhhh… not supposed to mention that. 😉
Hopefully this gets the pistol brace ruling tossed out. Designed to allow folks with physical issues safely hold and fire a pistol. First they were legal, now they are illegal.
A law enforcement agency has no business passing rules that can make a citizen a felon and be put in prison! Furthermore, congress has no authority under our Constitution to pass laws against what arms we as a free people are allowed to have. We are the militia, so we have the right to the same weapons as our military and law enforcement, or we are servants to them instead of them being our servants. How about they just use their resources to go after the actual criminals and gangs in the cities instead of the law abiding who only want the ability to defend themselves! We are not free when the police can arrest someone for simply possessing the same weapons they have and never harmed anyone with them.
@@ostlandr this pistol brace rule was overturned. They are legal again. Do your own research.
Purple is illegal. Red and blue make purple or so they are also illegal. Anything that make red or blue is also illegal. Also pictures or recipes for red blue or purple are also illegal. Orange? That looks red. That’s also illegal.
Did you forget your meds again ?
Conservative court ruling AGAINST regulators?
More like ruling FOR the constitution!
This is a good thing. Congress is supposed to make laws not unelected bureaucrats. I can't believe how people can't see the danger of allowing federal agencies to have near absolute power
Bureaucrats should never be allowed to make law, only propose law to Congress. The regulators overreached and the Supreme Court slapped them down. Good.
im absolutely fine with this ,agency's will now be held accountable for EVERYTHING
So it's Congress's fault.
Not really, agencies just over reached and got away with it so long they just became accustomed to doing whatever they wanted
@@jexy_marshall I agree, it's going to force Congress to actually do their job in overseeing the agencies and approve anything that can have far reachig affects.
@@londeaux
Yes. You know, like they're supposed to.
No, it's the fault of an extreme activist court.
@@SuperlunarNim lmao womp womp
Basically, the government was trying to use a rule that does not apply to what they’re trying to use it for and was pretty much made for Enron or Chevron, so the court went nope
The Old Constitution rules as it should. No more making up rules to turn your political opponents into criminals. Bureaucracies be damned for the illegal tyrants they represent. We the People persevere... Thank you SCOTUS for recognizing our Constitution. 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲 vs 🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳!!
To prevent any branch of government becoming too powerful, powers were separated: Congress writes laws, the Executive branch approves them, and the Supreme Court interprets laws. In 1984 the Supreme Court (with three Justices absent) wrote a decision known as the "Chevron decision", which combined all powers under the Executive branch. The President and his staff now had authority to write laws and interpret them, without the other branches of government. Today's Supreme Court decision weakens the Chevron decision, which helps to restore the separation of powers.
oh you want a weak FEMA..
This is the first step of putting corporate America on a short leash.
It's they cooperate with the party they are free to do as they please.
If they do anything that displeases the party or a competitor with stronger connections to the party, they will suddenly find themselves subject to regulations.
One of the most important decisions of this nation's history. That said, agencies will still be able to regulate, they will just have to hew much closer to the authorizing legislation (and that's a very good thing).
Regulators aren’t to be trusted to fairly interpret laws. That’s not under their purview.
Excellent. Many of these unelected agencies should be disbanded. Federal govt needs to go back to what it was meant to be. Speaking of SEC… it would’ve been nice if they watched congressional members from turning into millionaires by trading on info that should not be used.
That would be the best way to make everyone millionaires. Let us just enter the same stock option as out reps. Pelosi buys stock, we get the same stock buy in. She dump it before bringing legislation to the floor, ours get dumped.
Not even insider trading since we have no idea she was doing it.
Back in the day we had lead in the paint, lead in the gasoline, asbestos everywhere, and the rivers catching fire. That's how things are SUPPOSED to be. We must go back to those times.
@@PURENT Milwaukie poisoned a third of the city with contaminated water WITH your beloved epa. Entire town in Hawaii was burned to the ground with your EPA.
Detroit has lead in their water lines, no one forced anyone to lick the paint on their a walls. Try going without water.
Lets not forget all the kids harmed by the EPA forcing schools to remove asbestos that was not a danger to anyone.
How many have been killed by your hack agencies mandate cars have claymores in the steering wheels? No crazy mandate like that would ever get though congress.
@@PURENTCongress can deal with all these issues publicly and not a bunch of unelected, unaccountable leftist deep state beurcrates.
Great ruling. Agencies have no business interpreting laws. Put back on the legislation and if they don’t do it, then it’s not a law and it defaults back to individual. freedom and liberty, which it was always supposed to be. Too much government regulation in everything.
What this ruling means is that CONGRESS has to do its job!!!
Thank God for the Conservative majority!
LMAO. Just because y'all are loud, doesn't mean you're the majority, simp.
How about a Libertarian majority, so that SCOTUS rulings are based on "No victim, no crime."?
Sorry your candidate negates “god” from that statement. His spiritual advisor is a Pedo
Constitutional majority
@@frostriver4547 you mean the new “Reich”
Alphabet agencies have trouble coming.
Half of those agencies only exist because some of our fellow Americans are too corrupt, greedy, and harmful to others.
So do Americans who do not like food poisoning or carcinogens in the drinking water.
Combined with project 2025 would give Republicans unprecedented control over free enterprise. It allows the Judiciary to prosecute any company that does not bow to the party.
@@jamesricker3997 dems overstepped by forcing emission and electric cars down our throats. The next thing they need to do is make SMOG CHECKS unconstitutional.
So now congress cant just pass vague laws and expect them to give endless power to the gov? Fantastic.
Think of the poor congressmen! They will actually have to do their jobs and take hard votes!
Since Chevron has been overturned shouldn't the corporate veil also be overturned?
Thank you SCOTUS, It's long overdue.
State agencies are given their power by these federal agencies and should be shut down as well. ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!! END ADMINISTRATIVE LAW!!
They overturned it based on the severe lack of due process .
A big win for the Constitution!
Why did they say the enron (j6) decision hadn't been given yet.. and are waiting on that one to come out Monday? They already decided that one!! (Correctly, I might add)
Agencies = Unelected bureaucrats. Bureaucrat: an official in a government department, in particular one perceived as being concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people's needs.
This is a win.
This is fantastic news! Make congress do their jobs! No more environment activist making small farmers, loggers, truck drivers and fishermen to take the brunt of this.
GOD DAMN I DID NOT EXPECT THEM TO DO THIS TODAY
Federal agencies are there to enforce laws. Not make them.
Jack Smith is pissed 😂😂😂
This has nothing to do with Jack Smith.
🤣🤣🤣
@@mizzury54 There is a ruling that just affected Jack Smith and all Jan 6th people in prison.
Give him diapers lije joe
@mizzury54 then you don't understand, he has no authority now so he need to recuse himself
Executive order, all supreme court decisions must be televised. I want to see their faces when handing down all of these decisions. Seeing and hearing everything they are saying may help us
Why now? After 40 years, what changed?
So now the farmer who wants to put aside some acreage and sow a different seed to feed his cattle and family can now do so. This Chevron ruling restore the American Dream and our right of self determination, happiness, and well-being. This was needed.
So. Now we actually have spend more time making sure what we pass a law and regulations needs to be more clear and constitutional. Good
I sure hope this applies to the ATF.
WIN......this is as important as the Bruen decision.
This is so wonderful, Bureaucracy had become the fourth and most powerful branch of government, Trump had been trying to rein in Bureaucracy and his Justice picks did the job for him. The idea the Bureaucrats can create laws and penalties by decree is unamerican, unconstitutional, an abuse of power. Now we need budget cuts that cuts down the size of Bureaucracy to reduce the deficit.
Truly great ruling.
This is far too boring for the average American but it is the most impactful change of the last 40 years.
If you like lead poisoning, food poisoning, unsafe planes, toxic companies in your back yard, un democratic unscrupulous lower courts deciding how much cancer causing chemicals are in your water, this is a great day for you.
Way to go SCOTUS !!!!
1:54
So unless Congress continues to not write more clear laws, it goes to the courts. So, Congress should write more clear laws so that it doesn't go to the courts. Easy.
The congress could amend the law in question to make it more clear.
She mentioned the EPA, they can do great things but they could also say my ICE car is illegal because it doesn`t reach zero emissions.
There is nothing wrong with going back to court, what lawyer doesn`t want that.
Or congress can right a law that is constitutional or clear so non elected people don`t impose laws on me that are unconstitutional.
I want to give an example of why this is a good decision. I left CA years ago because of so any regulation are put upon the people of that state. Each year the South Coast Air Quality board puts hundreds if not thousands of people out of work. I grew up in the LA basin in the 60s. I remember days on end when I could not see the mountains that were only a few miles away. With the regulations that were put in place the air is dramatically better. Now that no longer happens. Back to my point these days most of the pollution CA has is coming from China being blown across the Pacific by the trade winds. So in reality any further tightening of regulations is fruitless. Yet people are still being put out of work! If you think that I’m full of it just think back a couple of years to the Chinese spy balloons and before that the Japanese bombs that made it as far as the mid-west during WW2.
People are not going to be happy as things starts collapsing. Without regulation the producers are not required to have any standards and can pass on low quality and hazardous products to consumers. In a few years there will a public outcry and harder regulations might come back.
If consumers are hurt, then companies get sued. Businesses cannot survive without consumers or by losing lots of money in court costs. The market will determine quality and safety.
@@n.d.m.515 ah yes, product A cause's cancer, by the time meaningful legislation is through the system(which will get challenged in court) the damage is done. You reap what you sow.
Good! Agencies are run by political operatives that interpret law base on their political agenda.
We are not supposed to be governed by regulators. Why are you defending it. REPRESENTATIVE government DEMANDS legislation.
Wait wait wait ……. Who is running the studio they are talking about the chevron doctrine and then someone cuts in the Chevron stock ticker.
If the court is overturning old rulings then what does that mean for the court itself?
I guess it means you can hope they reinstate your activist judge ruling that blacks are property. I wouldn't hold my breath.
But the court can't rule on a case until it is brought in front of them. No one forced planned parenthood to take the case to the court.
Same with chevron, agency could have said, our bad we can't do that and there would be no case.
Courts overturn old rulings all the time. Nothing wrong with that. If courts ruled to the letter of the laws created by the elected representatives and held to rhe wirding of the constitution then they would never need to. We can agree that the constitution needs an update and that our elected representatives need to do their damn jobs, not just focus on turning a 175k a year salary into 20 million a year.
@@westondavis1682 updated? It needs to be trimmed back to 10 amendments.
@robertsmith2956 Not all ammendments are bad. Some are unnecessary, such as the amendment abolishing slavery and the right for women to vote. The constitution was clear on equality and rights without those amendments. They were mainly prefunctary to underline a civil change to bring society in line with the constitution. The amendments on presidential term limits, succession, and incapacitation are needed. The amendment that sets voting age at 18 is okish, prolly needs to be more around 21, but that is my opinion. I would like to see the elction of senators go back to state appointment. That paricular amendment erroded state power and gave it to the federal. Plenty of additions need to be updated based on the new realities brought about by technology.
What a great day for FREEDOM! No more abuse of power by the ATF, DOE, IRS, FBI, CIA etc.
This ruling basically means that the agencies have to go to a congressional oversite committee to get approval.
No, it just means agencies have to follow existing laws and stop making up their own rules.
Nope. That would still be unconstitutional. They need to enforce the law as written and as directed by the elected president.
Any conflicts over interpretation will take place in the courts or by Congress re-writing the law, as is proper
So now the courts have to rely on the law written by elected officials. Good thing the most recently elected Congress debates the bills before passage at a high intellectual level and all bills are very well thought out.
significant for VA... good for veterans!
I for one welcome this ruling.
The congress should be writing clear and concise laws and not leaving it up to unelected bearcats to interpret the laws to suit whatever admin which is in office at the time or whatever the unelected decide.
But you can't write a law that will encompass all edge cases. Just look at IFRS and GAAP. GAAP tries to be rules based and is much, much bigger than IFRS that is more vague (I think aomething like 2 000 vs 20 000 pages). Imagine lawmakers having to write laws 10 times longer than what you have now and still missing edge cases. And I doubt any politician can be an expert on everything.
This is very good
Can’t just talk about the ruling, has to say a “conservative “ court. Lose the bias when reporting!!!
BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO AMERICA I LOVE THE SUPREME COURT🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Great information thank you ❤❤❤🎉🎉
This is a power grab. Our environment will suffer greatly with this ruling.
Says the person with the cardboard sword .