Jump to content

One more blockbuster Supreme Court decision could still be coming even after Friday's abortion ruling


Recommended Posts

Posted

I have just read blurbs about this case and not in depth. I’m not so sure how this will go. The Supreme Court has, correctly in my opinion, ruled that unelected officials have the right to make rules with the effect of law. That includes onthe state local and national levels.

The issue is whether an elected legislative body gave that committee or agency that authority or if the authority was given, did they overstep the bounds of the legislation?

During Covid we often saw claims that the governor’s  executive orders were not law. That is completely false. During a declared emergency, the governor of the state of Texas can issue an order that has the full effect of criminal law including jail and a fine. That is because during the regular legislative session, the Texas legislature enacted such a law and  it was signed by the then governor. Unless it is changed by a new law, the governor has the authority under emergency powers.

If I remember it correctly, Biden ordered OSHA to mandate that all companies with at least 100 employees, have them all vaccinated. The Supreme Court stepped in and said that OSHA definitely has the authority by passed legislation to make rules to make a workplace safe however that does not include medical decisions that affects a person once he leaves the place of business. The issue was not whether OSHA had that authority to issue mandates, they do. The issue was if OSHA had a right to make medical decisions that affects a person’s  life after he leaves the job. The Supreme Court ruled that they do not have that authority.

From the brief summaries that I have read, this case appears to be similar. Did OSHA overstep their authority or did they do so after an executive order by the Trump  administration to cease? I haven’t read anything in depth about the argument from both sides so I just kind of know the basic claim. I think…..

Posted

My guess is that SCOTUS will rule for WV. However, I don't know if it will be a narrow ruling, or a broad decision.

 

The case could upend the the administrative state, or it could just gut the EPA.

 

A wide ruling, declaring that agencies do not have regulatory powers seems unlikely, because it would fall upon Congress to suddenly actually run the government. That would lead to a complete reshuffling of staff and require them to work together.

 

Will SCOTUS do that? Dunno. Perhaps they will handcuff Biden's EPA and leave the bigger regulatory questions for down the road, signaling its coming.

 

Whatever happens, this Supreme Court is already the most conservative in a century imo.

 

Posted
43 minutes ago, Unwoke said:

My guess is that SCOTUS will rule for WV. However, I don't know if it will be a narrow ruling, or a broad decision.

 

The case could upend the the administrative state, or it could just gut the EPA.

 

A wide ruling, declaring that agencies do not have regulatory powers seems unlikely, because it would fall upon Congress to suddenly actually run the government. That would lead to a complete reshuffling of staff and require them to work together.

 

Will SCOTUS do that? Dunno. Perhaps they will handcuff Biden's EPA and leave the bigger regulatory questions for down the road, signaling its coming.

 

Whatever happens, this Supreme Court is already the most conservative in a century imo.

 

The reason I do not believe you are entirely correct is because that government could not operate. Even a city has a city manager that is hired by the city Council to basically do the day-to-day operations of the city. Can you imagine having to convene  a city Council meeting for every decision have to be made?

Look at a city the size of Beaumont. There are a couple of openings in the public works department. The manager of public works hires two people and the city manager approves. But wait, the city Council has to be called Into session to debate and have a vote whether those two people could be hired. In the same week however there are five new employees in the water department, four  new police officers, two new firefighters, five roads that needs to be repaired, etc.Even in a small city, government operations would have to completely shut down if every single issue had to be debated. People or commissioners have to be given the authority to act without calling for an act of Congress.

Another example is the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. They have been given the authority by the Texas legislature, signed into law by the governor, to regulate hunting and fishing licenses, bag and size limits, etc. Can you imagine calling the legislature back into a special session every time there is a devastating freeze that damages the fish population of South Texas or something similar? Then you are going to  have a bunch of locally elected politicians the say what fish limits and size should be?

There is some information that just came in about possible violent protests tomorrow in a city. The police chief who has the authority decides to put extra officers on the street just in case. No, let’s contact the city Council and have them convene at 2 AM the day before the protests,  that we just found out about, and see if they wish to pay the overtime.

No. They give that authority to an appointed government  body or person.  

Posted
1 minute ago, tvc184 said:

The reason I do not believe you are entirely correct is because that government could not operate. Even a city has a city manager that is hired by the city Council to basically do the day-to-day operations of the city. Can you imagine having to convene  a city Council meeting for every decision have to be made?

Look at a city the size of Beaumont. There are a couple of openings in the public works department. The manager of public works hires two people and the city manager approves. But wait, the city Council has to be called Into session to debate and have a vote whether those two people could be hired. In the same week however there are five new employees in the water department, four  new police officers, two new firefighters, five roads that needs to be repaired, etc.Even in a small city, government operations would have to completely shut down if every single issue had to be debated. People or commissioners have to be given the authority to act without calling for an act of Congress.

Another example is the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. They have been given the authority by the Texas legislature, signed into law by the governor, to regulate hunting and fishing licenses, bag and size limits, etc. Can you imagine calling the legislature back into a special session every time there is a devastating freeze that damages the fish population of South Texas or something similar? Then you are going to  have a bunch of locally elected politicians the say what fish limits and size should be?

There is some information that just came in about possible violent protests tomorrow in a city. The police chief who has the authority decides to put extra officers on the street just in case. No, let’s contact the city Council and have them convene at 2 AM the day before the protests,  that we just found out about, and see if they wish to pay the overtime.

No. They give that authority to an appointed government  body.

Your definitely more versed and experienced in law than me, I was just throwing in my 2 cents. An it’s probably not worth 2 cents. Lol. Those are great points you brought up though. 

Posted

There is a fine line that distinguishes who gets to make law by legislative process or by executive fiat. The ultimate problem is that nobody can define and establish that line. TVC gave some great examples of legal fiat. Examples of overreach would be the something like the Beaumont mayor decreeing that (s)he doesn't want 14 and 15 year old kids in high school, so all Beaumont schools must keep these students in Junior High. Or maybe the Parks and Wildlife Department decreeing that JetSkis are no longer allowed on any Texas waterways. Or that the police chief decrees motorcycles are too dangerous and therefore outlawed in Beaumont. There is a line, but who gets to decide?

This issue will never be settled. A case by case ruling with very limited precedence is all we should be able to hope for. I frankly don't see this case as blockbuster. Very important, but not enduring precedence.

  • 1 year later...
Posted

Reached back and pulled this thread up again. I think Phatmack posted this a while back but it deserves posting again. If you have a weak stomach, maybe you shouldn’t listen to this. Pro-Choice women should have to watch this. 
 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,283
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Malachi
    Newest Member
    Malachi
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...