The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

SCOTUS Overturning Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council [SPLIT]

fredroy

JUB Addict
Joined
Aug 7, 2023
Posts
1,992
Reaction score
1,337
Points
113
Location
West of Austin
I think overturning Chevron is a good thing, If Congress wants a law, let Congress pass a law, and actually do more than lining their pockets for a change. What a novel idea.

That the EPA, for example, can declare someone's pond that exists only when it rains is under their jurisdiction because it drains into a creek that drains into a river is nonsense. The BATF declaring bump stocks, whatever that is, make your rifle into a machine gun is more nonsense.

Overturning Chevron is about preventing un-elected bureaucrats from "making rules" and then deciding you broke their rule and then finding you guilty with their internal set of judges and hey, what about "trail by jury"? That's what the court system is for, yes?

Making laws is the job of Congress.
 
I think overturning Chevron is a good thing, If Congress wants a law, let Congress pass a law, and actually do more than lining their pockets for a change. What a novel idea.

That the EPA, for example, can declare someone's pond that exists only when it rains is under their jurisdiction because it drains into a creek that drains into a river is nonsense. The BATF declaring bump stocks, whatever that is, make your rifle into a machine gun is more nonsense.

Overturning Chevron is about preventing un-elected bureaucrats from "making rules" and then deciding you broke their rule and then finding you guilty with their internal set of judges and hey, what about "trail by jury"? That's what the court system is for, yes?

Making laws is the job of Congress.

With "Chevron" Congress gave broad mandates but put the responsibility to determine and enforce individual regulations on those experts who understand the intricate, detailed minutiae of the things they regulate. Expecting congress to legislate on every single, pedantic, arcane instance is a recipe for doing nothing. Which is, of course, what they want. Congress is unable to that, so nothing will be done. The agencies are neutered, regulations are gone, they can get away with anything they want with impunity. Self-regulation does not work. Overturning Chevron is an open door for Project 2025 to come in and decimate government agencies and departments, because now, the Supreme Court made them ineffective. Sieg Heil.

449521677_10160732758334902_821685264150319143_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
With "Chevron" Congress gave broad mandates but put the responsibility to determine and enforce individual regulations on those experts who understand the intricate, detailed minutiae of the things they regulate. Expecting congress to legislate on every single, pedantic, arcane instance is a recipe for doing nothing. Which is, of course, what they want. Congress is unable to that, so nothing will be done. The agencies are neutered, regulations are gone, they can get away with anything they want with impunity. Self-regulation does not work.
It's not just self-regulation.

The internet was invented in 1983. It was regulated under a Telecommunications Act passed by Congress in 1934.

It wasn't until 1995, 12 years later, that Congress got around to updating the Telecommunications Act to officially add the internet to the scope of what FCC regulates. Why? Because Congress was on a tangent about pornography on the internet which is why the 1995 Act contains an entire section called the "Communications Decency Act". If not for the porn obsession, Congress would have likely just let the 1934 Act suffice.

The next time that you're in a doctor's office or hospital, notice that you'll see fax machines in most offices. Why? Because in 1996, Congress wrote a law about healthcare privacy. Faxes are considered secure communications, where unencrypted email is not. Because Congress was too specific in the 1996 legislation, healthcare providers have been stuck using obsolete technology from 1996.

This is the biggest problem with having Congress write overly specific legislation: Congress is terrible at updating legislation to accommodate change. That's why it is much better for Congress to write broad, general laws and the empower experts and regulators to write the specific rules to accommodate progress in those industries.


Overturning Chevron is an open door for Project 2025 to come in and decimate government agencies and departments, because now, the Supreme Court made them ineffective. Sieg Heil.
It's been a conservative wet dream to "deconstruct the Administrative State". The Koch interests have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into this effort.

Americans are absolutely clueless about what their government actually does. They have no idea that before the government put in regulations, children used to die from drinking contaminated milk (not only was pasteurization not required, but bottlers would often put formaldehyde into milk to slow the spoiling process). Before regulators were enabled in the FDA, anyone could put something in a bottle and call it "medicine"; which is why Coca-Cola has the word "coca" in it... as in cocaine.

Before 1918, every city in the United States had a different time. There was often a clock in the town square or the railroad man for the train depot had a watch that determined "the time" in that location. Time was random and clocks might be set based upon an approximation of the position of the sun at noon. When you got on a train in New York, you had no idea what time you would arrive at your destination because there was no guarantee that "the time" in your destination was accurate. There are now two government agencies (one civilian, one military) who are responsible for telling Americans what time it is. Your computer and your phone depend upon the government to tell them what time it is; many devices don't keep accurate time and periodically resynchronize to the government's clocks.

Conservatives love to whine about regulations that they don't like and those regulations are an infinitesimal amount of what the government does. A significant portion of the economy and the stability of that economy is dependent upon those government regulations.
 
Last edited:
I think overturning Chevron is a good thing, If Congress wants a law, let Congress pass a law, and actually do more than lining their pockets for a change. What a novel idea.

That the EPA, for example, can declare someone's pond that exists only when it rains is under their jurisdiction because it drains into a creek that drains into a river is nonsense. The BATF declaring bump stocks, whatever that is, make your rifle into a machine gun is more nonsense.

Overturning Chevron is about preventing un-elected bureaucrats from "making rules" and then deciding you broke their rule and then finding you guilty with their internal set of judges and hey, what about "trail by jury"? That's what the court system is for, yes?

Making laws is the job of Congress.
I agree, congressmen can do their job and earn their pay. They are more concerned about insider trading. Un-elected bureaucrats should follow laws and not make them.
 
That the EPA, for example, can declare someone's pond that exists only when it rains is under their jurisdiction because it drains into a creek that drains into a river is nonsense.

They can declare that your pasture that has water standing on most of its area for at least eight days a year is wetlands, too -- that's been used here to turn dairy pasture into acreage of noxious plants that not even the elk will eat.

I recall a lawsuit to force a rule change on that to one that depends on the local climate and ecology but I don't know how it turned out -- on fact there were multiple lawsuits in different states. I liked the argument of one that the standing water would have to be present long enough for it to show specifically aquatic animals and plants -- it at least had some science behind it!

One of my university chemistry professors once worked for the EPA; he said back then it was a very science-oriented organization, but around the time of Reagan it started becoming political and developed the bureaucrat's disease of seeking to expand authority.
 
Making laws is the job of Congress but the more specific the law the harder it will be to pass so I do believe this is an attempt to stop the regulations by stopping the law from being passed. But it is true that particularly the EPA has abused their power, those who work there believe in its mission more than congress does so here we are.

What I find interesting is something Justice Gorsuch wrote in his majority opinion in the case concerning the homeless and whether local governments can remove them from public places. “homeless is a complex issue and it’s causes are many” but federal judges “do not have any special competence” to how cities should deal with this.

So the issue of the homeless too complicated for judges to judge but all of the cases which may come to the court now that Chevron has been overturned are not, no matter the complexity no matter the experts on the other side this is something judges have a special competence to do.

Fortunately for Justice Gorsuch consistency is not something judges need worry about.
 
it is much better for Congress to write broad, general laws and the empower experts and regulators to write the specific rules to accommodate progress in those industries.

And the agencies that are supposed to regulate some industry end up being run by people from that industry who use the bureaucracy to shift things so their companies and stock rise in value, and to hell with the ordinary citizen!
 
Project 2025 plans to dismantle the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Why? Because NOAA is warning the public about climate change and doing the scientific research to understand and predict its impact. But Reich-wing literally does not believe in science. So they want to destroy the whole agency. You don't care about your daily weather forecast or hurricane tracking or the effects of climate change, do you? NOAA is the parent agency of the National Weather Service.

But do go on about how congress is supposed to pass laws about predicting climate and weather. Overturning "Chevron" is just another step to destroying the climate for oil money and more bricks in the road to the fascist apocalypse.

Project 2025’s call to dismantle NOAA by eliminating or privatizing key functions of the agency is the endgame of years of attempts by conservatives and right-wing media to attack the credibility of the agency and the veracity of the data it produces. It also illustrates that the conservative plan is not just to dismantle U.S. climate policy, but also to scrub the climate data that underpins it.

 
Last edited:
And the agencies that are supposed to regulate some industry end up being run by people from that industry who use the bureaucracy to shift things so their companies and stock rise in value, and to hell with the ordinary citizen!
Which is why elections matter. If you don't want idiots appointed to run government agencies, don't vote for candidates who install incompetent people (*cough* Ben Carson), cronies (*cough* Betsy DeVos) or corrupt people (*cough* Ryan Zinke).
 
Which is why elections matter. If you don't want idiots appointed to run government agencies, don't vote for candidates who install incompetent people (*cough* Ben Carson), cronies (*cough* Betsy DeVos) or corrupt people (*cough* Ryan Zinke).
Easier said than done now.

When states with more cows than people elect Presidents, the chances of incompetents and the corrupt being appointed by a Senate that also does not reflect the democratic will of the people rises exponentially.
 
Project 2025 plans to dismantle the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Why?
There's a second reason:

NOAA and the National Weather Service (NWS) is part of the Commerce Department. It's about 60% of the department's budget- about $1 billion per year and it has about 12,000 employees. NWS provides up-to-the-minute weather data to everyone... for free.

The Trump Administration tried to nominate Barry Myers to head the NOAA. Who is Barry Myers? He was the CEO of AccuWeather, a for-profit company that takes the free data provided by NWS and resells it to subscribers for about $100 million per year. Myers is a big Republican donor and was a major backer of Rick Santorum.

From the Wikipedia article on Barry Myers:
As an AccuWeather executive, Myers lobbied unsuccessfully to restrict the National Weather Service, a governmental service which provides free weather forecasting, from providing the service and competing with AccuWeather's business.

Get rid of the NWS and NOAA and you save the government $1 billion... and you open the opportunity for for-profit companies to take over the business of collecting and then selling weather data that we all depend upon.

Do you want to know the weather forecast tomorrow? Sorry, you'll have to pay first.
 
Last edited:
Easier said than done now.

When states with more cows than people elect Presidents, the chances of incompetents and the corrupt being appointed by a Senate that also does not reflect the democratic will of the people rises exponentially.
And ask yourself, "Where is the Democratic equivalent of Project 2025?". Where's the plan to reform things?
 
Across the broad spectrum of American politics, there is no appetite or actual perceived need for reform.

The Dems believe in incremental and often almost grudging advances for fear of losing the base that actually funds them and in protecting reforms already made in the past.

And each administration has contributed at least one advance in policy or program.

But they see the course of this advance through legislation instead of fiat.

The Dems don't feel the need to seize government the same way that the radical right christian base does.
 
...The Dems believe in incremental and often almost grudging advances for fear of losing the base that actually funds them and in protecting reforms already made in the past.
Bingo.

When I hear my Democratic friends bemoan the Electoral College or the SCOTUS decisions they don't like, I always ask, "So, what are you going to do about it?".

What follows is a serious of excuses... the filibuster, don't want to be too radical, don't want to alienate the base, if we punish Joe Manchin, he'll switch parties...

Republicans don't think this way. They were lost in the wilderness 50 years ago but they came up with a plan and they stuck to it relentlessly until they got into power and, even though the majority of Americans are not on board with their agenda, they have the power to implement it.

Democrats are busy tearing each other apart over political correctness and identity politics. There is no plan.

Once upon a time, the Koch Brothers ran for elected office. They couldn't get elected. When they realized that they could not use democracy to get rid of the government and government regulation, they switched tactics. They poured millions into "think tanks" and PACs. They started buying Republican politicians. They had a plan to take over the Federal Courts, the State legislatures and implement far-right agenda through proxy Republican politicians that they financed. It took them 40+ years but their goal of undoing the New Deal and eliminating government regulators is on the verge of coming to fruition.

The Koch Brothers aren't Trump fans but they see him as a means to an end. There's a line from the movie "Paper Moon" where the two young girls are talking about Miss Trixie and it explains the Trump Administration's relationship with rich donors:

Imogene: Well, if you want to call it dancing. All she do is wag her hips and shake her old behind a little.
Addie: How come she'd leave that job back there?
Imogene: 'Cause the boss man tried to make her put out for his friends. And she don't believe in putting out for free.
Addie: She put out much?
Imogene: Just like a gum machine. You drop something in and she'll put something out.

Democrats always have an excuse about why they don't want to fight dirty. That's why they're on the verge of losing a democracy.
 
Democrats always have an excuse about why they don't want to fight dirty. That's why they're on the verge of losing a democracy.

Good point.

The rules of democracy expect people to act and abide by them in good faith.
We are trying to play by the rules of democracy to save democracy.
They are abusing the rules of democracy to destroy democracy.

Coincidentally, this came across in my FB feed today.



449776241_790726213226687_5605684066685836965_n.jpg449688052_790726246560017_7785513610226835748_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Good point.

The rules of democracy expect people to act and abide by them in good faith.
We are trying to play by the rules of democracy to save democracy.
They are abusing the rules of democracy to destroy democracy.
And two of the key assumptions in our democracy have been that no one is above the law and we have a peaceful transition of power.

So, do we still have a democracy? And if we don't, then Republicans and Democrats who want to restore democracy are going to have to make some difficult decisions.
 
Republicans will never, ever want to restore inclusive democracy.

It is anathema to them.

Eventually they will only allow white property owners to vote in a uni-party system.
 
Republicans will never, ever want to restore inclusive democracy.
Which is why they need to be relegated to a permanent minority until they move back to a more centrist agenda.

What they have done can be undone. It will take a generation but Democrats and traditional conservative Republicans need to organize and begin the process now.
 
There are no old school conservative Republicans left. They have tasted what it is like to have real power to hurt others and they fucking love it. Every fucking one of them. They either love the racism, or the misogyny, the homo and transphobia, or the 'me. just me' pocketbook policies that make them think they will all be able to be as rich as Musk.

The US will never return to the days of the middle of the road conservatives holding real power. That bloc has literally ceded that ground in their craven ass sucking of the far right voters.

And 4 more years of Trumpian extremist candidates winning and re-defining federal government as a designed to fail operation means that the 'moderate' candidates will have the same position and access to power as the 'moderates' do in rrrZZZia and other autocratic, oligarchical states.

Watch for the final ploy by the right. A concerted attempt to splinter the left into factions that cannot coalesce around a single issue. It makes the ones they don't like easier to outlaw and means that any threat of a majority vote is eliminated.
 
Back
Top