Supreme Court Could Weaken Federal Agencies

[shocktown]

Democracy survives, thanks to Trump’s SCOTUS appointments.

With a special thanks to Harry Reid for going to the nuclear option in 2013!

[Shockm]

It's pretty obvious that states rights have diminished since the 17th amendment. The people were never meant to elect senators because then they're more susceptible to the pandering to people as opposed to working for the actual benefit and being a voice for the state. There's a reason the Founders didn't want the Senate being put together by the whims of the populace.

You call it a conservative talking point but I've seen very few so-called conservatives ever talk about it. Though they may be starting to now as you're seeing more and more states push back. The only places I ever see/hear this being talked about are amongst libertarians who are big on reigning in the power of DC. Most conservatives seem to like to power of DC, as long as it's focused on their issues as opposed to liberal issues.

I did read that Conservatives were for it. I just don't know how doing away with the 17th Amendment will go, and I don't think you know either. That's all I was saying.

Here is a Conservative organization saying that there are two sides to this coin if you care to read it. Some aspects might be good, and some might not.

https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/some-conservatives-want-repeal-the-17th-amendment-heres-why-theyre

"Some Conservatives Want to Repeal the 17th Amendment. Here’s Why They’re Misguided."

[SubGod22]

So the main "negative" is that states and the federal government would have to be more fiscally responsible? I'm not sure on what planet that would be a negative.

Every other point he basically argued that states already do that or have the power, which is questionable. And there's still the fact that without states having representation we're likely to still see some more federal growth down the road that would otherwise not happen.

[Shockm]

I don’t think you read the entire article.

[pinstripers]

Woah.......... They just cut into Wheel of Fortune so that Joe could give a political speech from the White House. That sh!t ain't right.

[pinstripers]

image.png

[SB Shock]

image.png

It is a pretty rational decision from the Supreme Court, regardless of what the democrats are whining about (which I'm pretty sure haven't even read they court decision).

[ShockerPrez]

All I've heard today is that the Dems believe the president may now murder Trump and pretty much everyone they want.

These f***ing people are... I don't even know what. A combination of stupid, evil, power crazed, and delusional.

[Kung Wu]

image.png

Well duh.

[SubGod22]

I don’t think you read the entire article.

I did. There was very little that was 'negative' other than mere speculation and claims that states can still fight things, even though the reality is it's much tougher for them to fight bad laws and regulations after the fact than during their implementation. A lot of things could be stopped if states had a voice in DC before they had to try and battle it through the court system.

And yet still, there is a very good reason the Founders wanted the states to have representation and removing that has done more harm than good.

[Shockm]

I did. There was very little that was 'negative' other than mere speculation and claims that states can still fight things, even though the reality is it's much tougher for them to fight bad laws and regulations after the fact than during their implementation. A lot of things could be stopped if states had a voice in DC before they had to try and battle it through the court system.

And yet still, there is a very good reason the Founders wanted the states to have representation and removing that has done more harm than good.

It did talk substantially about states being beholding to the Federal Government in all areas which may become worse. It included states demanding more money from the federal government and issues such as immigration in the states and sanctuary laws which could have a worse result.

I don't think we know what unintended results would be. It's all speculative.

[Shockm]

Anyone who is in favor of the Chevron results and limiting federal government powers that are a result of civilian decisions and interference should read this article on how Trump and others (Conservatives) have tried to reign in federal powers for years.
The Goal Of The "Architects of the Supreme Court" Was Always Overruling Chevron, and not Overruling Roe

"McConnell: "Dismantling the administrative state and empowering people who are actually elected to make decisions has been the motivating force" for nearly every "Federalist Society-type lawyer."

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/07/03/the-goal-of-the-architects-of-the-supreme-court-was-always-overruling-chevron-and-not-overruling-roe/

[SubGod22]

Not the Supreme Court this time, but it could still lead to more and will probably get appealed to the SC.

A Federal Court Just Upended Decades of Environmental Regulation

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that federal agencies and courts have been misinterpreting a major environmental law for the last half-century, casting doubt on whether a key White House agency can actually write binding regulations on environmental policy.

In an unsigned 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel concluded that the Council on Environmental Quality, or CEQ, had been issuing binding regulations in error since the late 1970s. It held that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, also known as NEPA, did not grant rulemaking authority to the agency—which it had nonetheless wielded since the Carter administration.

The panel sounded almost surprised that it had to reach this conclusion in the first place. “The separation of powers and statutory interpretation issue that CEQ’s regulations present is thus unremarkable,” it noted in its ruling. “What is quite remarkable is that this issue has remained largely undetected and undecided for so many years in so many cases.”

Tuesday’s ruling in Marin Audobon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration is a complicated one and it will likely come under intense scrutiny on appeal. Even the panel majority acknowledged that it is somewhat at odds with the Supreme Court’s own rulings on the matter. (More on that later.) Nonetheless, its conclusions could have far-reaching implications for how the federal government writes new regulations—and how it considers environmental issues when doing so.

Congress enacted NEPA in 1969 after the environmentalist movement emerged as a major force in American politics. In its most basic form, NEPA created environmental guardrails for other federal agencies to follow when carrying out their duties. When those agencies wrote or re-wrote federal regulations, for example, the law generally required them to assess the environmental impact of their changes along the way.