SCOTUS throws out Roe, bunch of states do constitutional amendments, SCOTUS rules “Na, none of that means anything, all abortions are now illegal!”
I don’t see that happening given the direct text of Dobbs:
The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
Not voting is only dangerous if you assume the non-voters would otherwise side with your favored candidate.
I didn’t have a single one until 5th grade, if you don’t count gym.
Like others have said defensive wars. But I also don’t take issues with a countries that have a brief compulsory service system in times of peace as a means of ensuring a large pool of qualified fighters without a large standing army.
The moderator’s mic was probably on too.
Think you meant non elected.
But the point is that policy decisions aren’t to be made by courts or agencies. They are to be made by an elected legislature, informed by the Congregational Research Services. To ensure the separation of powers.
Then the Executive agencies are to be tasked with enforce of the law. And if conflict should arise in the understanding of the law the judiciary is to interpret the law. And while judges are not experts in everything they are the experts in statutory interpretation.
My perspective having known about Chevron before Friday is that while this is a big development for admin law people seem to be overstating the impact it will likely have. Agencies like the EPA, FDA, etc can still make rules as before now courts just have to judge arguments on interpretation impartially, like they did before the SCOTUS made the doctrine in the 80s aiding Reagan. The SCOTUS hasn’t even applied it since 2016.
They are native to N. America as well.
What did the short-tailed weasel ever do to you to deserve this
The issue is the 8A is understood to have refered to the punishments being cruel or unusual, per the Court, not the offense. The actual punishments here (fine, court order, or 30 days in jail) are fairly normal for laws, the only odd thing about the statute is what the “crime” is.
The video had mentioned they were weighted to be the same weight as normal cartridges but that last picture is a really good visual of that. The fact they didn’t have a way of telling by marking seems concerning.
If I remember right there was an issue with the Soviets (or maybe Russians at that point) ordering non corrosive ammo so their soldiers had to clean their guns less but they were identical to the corrosive ammo. So they still had to clean them all the time as they couldn’t ever be sure.
It’s the US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for those curious.
Yes, now if you have an interpretation and the agency has one the judge has to judge them both equally. If you can offer a more compelling understanding of the law the judge should favor your perspective. But if the agency has a better one they will win.
Thanks for the citation someone posted that along with a quote from the dissent in another thread and it had me going back into the opinion looking for where they said that.
Here’s how it was before:
Congress passes a law: “No one shall wear socks and sandals”
The executive agency, in charge of enforcement rules, decides on if they meant you can’t wear either or just both at the same time.
Then in court the judges would have to assume that Congress meant to prohibit wearing either if the agency came to that conclusion.
Now: When the judges hear the case they might still side with the agency but if they feel the other side has a more reasonable interpretation they can side again the agency.
Really dumbed down example but basically now courts don’t have to accept to the executive agency’s interpretation over the other party’s.
That’d be a bit excessive, this change doesn’t mean the courts can’t/won’t still accept executive interpretations or that executive rule making is dead. It also doesn’t prohibit the delegation of authority from the legislature to the executive branch, it just requires that they do so explicitly. This ruling returned the legal paradigm on part of admin law to a pre-Reagan state.
The problem starts before the court came into the equation. It’s a stupid law.
No clue what sparked the connection as I haven’t seen the show, but it looks like sometime this year. No official date has been announced. Hope this helps.
Beyond the obvious constitution issues, federalizing every law makes it harder for the people of a state to adjust the laws of their state to fit their desires. Creating a less democratic society.