Nondelegation doctrine is congress has to do their jobs and can't transfer responsibility for code to agencies. Basically a CFR can't exceed regulatory burden of it's controlling USC.
I totally agree with this. Agencies should have a feedback mechanism to congress to propose rule changes not independent rulemaking, CFRs allow agencies to decide they don't like the law and ignore it. We already have parts of agencies configured like this, FDA drugs and a decent chunk of food regulation is set by congress with no wiggle for the FDA to make rules that are not simply clarifying process.
Chuds are all r-slurred though. They say things like:
The biggest tragedy to a judge is telling them they aren't kings.
The non-delegation doctrine is essential to dismantling the deep state. Failing to abide by this principle is blatantly unconstitutional. It's almost incomprehensible how much she sucks.
Wow. That's interesting that she doesn't want the will of the people carried out. How can one justify this.
Not recognizing it's a constraint on executive power. Nondelegation prevents congress transferring enumerated duties to the executive. Some of these include:
The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Executive has no authority to cancel visas, deport people without due process etc
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Executive has no authority to impose any tarrifs.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
Executive has no authority to impound appropriated funds or prevent execution of functions congress has dictated.
Why are chuds so utterly r-slurred?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I've never seen a liberal case for limiting judicial overreach except when they get bodied by the SCOTUS. Then we have to pack the courts because that's ethical or something, idk.
Gavel to gavel coverage, powered by cable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Im not that kind of liberal
(fricking burgers 
trying to frick with language 
again) so can't speak to that.
The current situation is purely because they have been terrified
of constitutional conventions for the last 250 years. Many founders, Jefferson and Madison included, strongly supported the precept that the law is for the living 
and a convention should 
occur every generation 
or so in order to ensure the form of government met the needs 
of the people it served. The weird 
judiciary situation exists because that never 
occurred so they simply assumed the mantle of deciding what current community 
standards are.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well, some founding fathers envision constitutional revisions every decade, and the majority of them viewed that as fricking whack and said "it gets done when it gets done." Through an amendment process.
Like the constitution of the US could be changed every day if congress would actually do that. But they won't, because they don't agree on anything except giving Israel and Ukraine more money.
The constitution is a dead document with a penumbra and some amendments. Seems easy to understand. But when you're a (American) liberal you don't care about democracy or processes, you care about results, impacts and conclusions. To this end, we have two competing schools, one where the constitution is alive and freely interpreted by a judge to spin law of straw, and the other where the constitution is dead and amendable when there's political willpower to do so.
Gavel to gavel coverage, powered by cable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I absolutely hate how congress and the executive always want SCOTUS to get vilified everytime wingcucks don't get their way on attempts to nerf the constitution or maintain a stupid and bad law
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
To be honest, SCOTUS does make a lot of unconstitutional decisions but because the executive/legislative branches agreed with it enough to play along SCOTUS is now a 9 man unelected legislative body.
Gavel to gavel coverage, powered by cable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's like watching a sport where the referees are handpicked by the teams but still have to make difficult calls because the teams are constantly exploiting edge cases in the rules against each other
All the while the people in the stands are so outraged at the rulings that they overlook how nobody is playing in the intended spirit of the game anymore
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
In this analogy the people in the stands are violent Make-A-Wish r-slurs who don't even understand the game being played
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
You've also never seen a conservative case for limiting judicial overreach except when they get bodied by SCOTUS
Liberals and conservatives have different beliefs about the proper role of the judiciary, and they only complain when the judiciary is overstepping that
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I've seen conservatives historically defend limits on federal courts. If you'd like a prominent document articulating that, read the Southern Manifesto about SCOTUS and federal overreach.
Gavel to gavel coverage, powered by cable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Only when the courts are ruling against conservatives.
Conservatives have been perfectly happy to write and endorse opinions that, for example, roll back 4A protections in "high drug areas" (not defined, you can just tell, and no, they don't mean Georgetown neighborhoods where law clerks pass around adderal and cocaine to work on last-minute briefs). Same with deciding that American Citizens have fewer constitutional protections if they are "predisposed to crime" (again, that term is not defined anywhere, it's just a vibe-check: you can just tell that some guys seem crime-y). Conservatives were totally supportive, when SCOTUS opened a major opinion with bald-faced factual lies, never previously argued by any party, that they knew would be photographically disproved in the very same document, in order to allow government establishment of religious practices.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You want to cite some court precedent bucko?
Like you may just be conflating conservatives coming up with extrajudicial interp of the constitution and such, or you might be talking about conservatives using and applying compelling government interest to prevent school shooters etc.
Gavel to gavel coverage, powered by cable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Whren vs US: Citizens have fewer constitutional protections against pretextual stop, search, and seizure if they are in a "high drug area". Facts were that police stopped a car for being stopped at a stop sign for a "suspiciously long time", and then drove off at an "unreasonable speed" (not a speeding violation, just driving sus in black neighborhood. Term "high drug area" is not defined, opinion written by Antonin Scalia
Hampton v. United States: it's okay for the government to use entrapment policing if the citizen is "predisposed to crime". Case is that government agents approached some rando playing pool in a bar, tell him they know someone who wants to buy drugs. Guy says he doesn't have drugs to sell, government offers to supply the drugs and pay him to hand them to the buyers. Guy says okay, goes to jail. SCOTUS upholds the conviction despite flagrant entrapment, because Hampton was "predisposed to the crime". That term is nowhere defined, it's just a vibe-check. Because, you know, you can just tell, with some people...(Rehnquist wrote)
Kennedy v Bremerton: HS football coach was holding mid-field prayer sessions where the whole team knelt in front him holding a helmet aloft in front of the crowd. The school district told him to stop, and he quit at the end of the season. The opening lines of Gorsuch's opinion are a series of blatant, bald-faced lies that were never even claimed by any party:
This is categorical and massive judicial overreach. SCOTUS is not even supposed to decide questions of fact. As an appellate court, hey are supposed to decide matters of law, process, and constitutional interpretation. If they determine that facts were improperly established at trial, they remand back to the lower courts for new proceedings, they don't make factual determinations. In this case, SCOTUS is literally just fabricating facts. Kennedy never claimed to have been fired, and he never even pretended the prayer sessions "private" or "personal". Moreover, Gorsuch wrote this and SCOTUS signed it knowing that the dissent, in the very same document, would include photographic proof of the public and performative nature of the prayer session.
None of these had anything to do with school shooters or exigent circumstances. They are all about giving the government greater control over individual liberties and constitutionally-guaranteed protections. Conservatives are okay with it, because they believe these constitutional carve-outs will privilege and protect their socio-cultural in-group at the expense of minorities.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah so I haven't opened those cases yet or read the law behind them. I'm currently spending time with family. But I want to tell you I appreciate the context and respect it.
I will reply later with something more substantive. Enjoy your night, and take care. If you care to, ping me in a few days if I never follow up.
Gavel to gavel coverage, powered by cable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Aren't we in a post about conservatives calling for judiciary limitations tho?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes, conservatives DON'T want the courts to rule against the conservative agenda. They DO want the courts to rule against the liberal agenda.
Sorry if that was ambiguous.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context