Washington CNN —
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to reconsider long held precedent and decide whether to significantly scale back on the power of federal agencies in a case that can impact everything from how the government addresses everything from climate change to public health to immigration.
Conservative justices have long sought to rein in regulatory authority, arguing that Washington has too much control over American businesses and individual lives. The justices have been incrementally diminishing federal power but the new case would allow them to take a much broader stride.
The justices announced they would take up an appeal from herring fishermen in the Atlantic who say the National Marine Fisheries Service does not have the authority to require them to pay the salaries of government monitors who ride aboard the fishing vessels.
Their action means they will reconsider a 1984 case – Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – that sets forward factors to determine when courts should defer to a government agency’s interpretation of the law.
Conservatives on the bench have cast a skeptical eye on the so-called Chevron deference, arguing that agencies are often too insulated from the usual checks and balances essential to the separation of powers.
I watched this on YouTube: Whistle blower reveals massive Supreme Court Scandal, as covered by Mediastouch Mike Popok
Exposing the ways and means of Conservative federalist society and the Scalia Law Center. Leonard Leo is at the center of the scandal. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=70QnST6xx9U
I am not familiar with this case, and its implications will depend upon how the ruling is written. However, my first thought was that the Department of Justice is a government agency just like any other. Has it promulgated regulations regarding SORNA by interpreting ambiguities in the law? Is that fundamentally different than the case now before the Corut? I’m just askin’.
Ya, we all know they want the best of both worlds. The love to marginalize and demonize out groups for political gain while screaming “states rights.” Whatever they say, believe the opposite. Just look no further during that SOCTUS confirmation hearing when they said that row v wade was “settled law” and then did a 180.
I’ve been hoping for the downfall of Chevron for many years, as many “old timers” on here may well recall. (Though if truly old timers, they may not be able to recall much!)
Reduction, if not elimination, of this horrible case law could do wonders to restoring our system of governments (yes, plural: State and Federal) to how they were meant to be and once were. Heaven forbid, though, that Congress will now need to do its job in delineating exactly what it means, versus, “here’s an outline, go figure it out for us, Agency X.”
I have often wondered if the courts would entertain the idea that the SORNA regulations are overreach. Has anyone tried the major questions doctrine? The concept is based on a EPA ruling, I think. Major questions doctrine is about issues / policy that are major, serious, and have broad political or economic consequences. It require the express authorization of congress to be authorized. The SORNA regulations were not individually authorized but written by the Justice Department, the executive branch.