On Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts knocked out the deep state by eliminating the bureaucracy’s ability to buffalo judges into agreeing to its interpretation of the law, rather than allow the judges to interpret the law as the Constitution requires. In 1984, the Supreme Court gave the deep state this power in what is known as the Chevron Case.
The Chevron decision should open the doors on Obamacare which was basically written by bureaucrats. The law left the definition of "minimum benefits" to the HHS and Obama knew that they would define most individual policies out of existence. "If you like your insurance - sorry, it won't be around any more."
Means when their blood is dripping from it justice will have begun. I make no excuses for what is the deserved treatment and handling of a treasonous enemy who would imprison - if not murder - conservative writers like Don Surber before doing the same to all of us as subscribers. We’re on a list somewhere in the deep state hard drive. I clearly mean “Head on a LITERAL pike”.
I'm quoting Steve Bannon from his interview with the State Press Anchor Jonathan Karl over his "heads on a pike" reference about Mayorkas and Fauci...LOL from an old War Room podcast. Its gold
The Dutch have a lot of proverbs about fishing. Here's one that may fit those so-called "observers": "In troebel water is het goed vissen," meaning: "In murky water the fishing's good."
Well, you know what they say about experts: "An expert is a man who can make love 748 different ways but doesn't know any women. " Thank goodness the Supremes cut the "experts" off at the pass.
Yeah, she does seem to have some deference to federal power still in her. I found this the most disappointing ruling, and the one with greater negative implications going forward. Every citizen and entity should have standing in front of any court where a basic freedom enshrined in the Bill of Rights is being usurped by the government. I'll take theses other rulings, because along with Alito's abortion ruling it begins the roll back of federal meddling in issues they should have no business being involved in, and I am a 10th Amendment guy.
Ditto here, but I have read that the fat lady hasn't sung on this. The ruling pertains to an injunction, not the merits of the underlying argument. There is a chance that it could still turn out well.
Amen! Her stating that the censorship chilled free speech, forcing people to be silent was ON THEM was the most egregious thing I think I have ever heard in my life!!
The secret to deconstructing the deep state lies 99% in removing (completely cutting out) the agencies that compose the administrative government.
Anyone who has tried to troubleshoot an electrical problem on a car understands it is very, very difficult because the wiring runs a million directions, is tightly bundled and difficult to observe through nooks and crannies impossible to reach, and can take a number of different pathways through the gatekeeping components. THAT is how the unelected administrative state works in our three branches of mostly elected representatives. They are impossible to really see and observe, impossible to trace or test for accountability, impossible to repair or fix if not working.
Completely cut out the abject administrative state.
In the meantime, a GOP-controlled Congress could simply curtail or even eliminate funding for said agencies. Provided, of course, that they had the stones to do it. Some of the women there clearly are better-endowed in that regard than most of the men.
Yes, Congress has lost its stones. It seems every role in our government is like water. It takes the path of least resistance causing damage in a location far removed from the source. Then, they waste time and money pointing fingers of blame.
If we need federal agencies, government has gotten too big.
Not a chance. And it’s not about stones. The tentacles of the administrative/deep state run deeply through the political parties. The Republican House caucus is rotten with RINOs, assuring there will never be substantial cuts to any agency. Even if a House majority could someday be mustered to make those cuts, the Democrats in the Senate will surely die on that hill to protect the agencies. The one thing that would undo this calculus is taking away the money Congress can spend. I’m not talking about some film-flam balance budget amendment. That wouldn’t do. Reform will come when Americans finally come to their senses and repeal the 16th Amendment. That limits what the Federal government can borrow. And Congress will finally get around to budgeting seriously. Seriously.
The dissenters are wrong: "“the majority has turned itself into the country’s administrative czar, taking power away from Congress and regulatory agencies.”"
This is not SCOTUS seizing power from the other two branches. In fact, it reaffirms that Congress has the right and duty to pass the laws AND make the regulations. Congress needs to work harder and better when it passes laws. It empowers Congress to do what they are supposed to be doing. It forces Congress to be more responsible.
Unfortrunately, lobbyists draft a lot of the laws that are sponsored by lazy-ass Congress lizards. They will have to start filling in more detail to please their patrons, if the agencies are being cut out of enforcement. It's going to take many lawsuits before we citizens can enjoy the full benefits of this ruling.
Agreed. But much of what leftist congress writes as law is on purpose…….vague and broad. They know the administrative agencies will write policy and regulations that promote their ideology. Congress was created to be a means for the people to say what they want their country to be. Both sides of the aisle know what the administrative state is and can do. If you don’t agree with that, then tell me why the GOP has not done a single thing to rein in or change it? The decisions being discussed here by SCOTUS are judicial changes. Congress could have fixed all of them previously if they had wanted. We need to elect better people and demand they listen to us.
I don't know . . . that John Candy marathon was very tempting to escape some of the current news environment post debate, but I deferred to toasting our Canadian friends.
It doesn’t come funnier than you, Don. “But that is how these government experts think — bass ackwards. Well, in this case herring ackwards because they fish for herring. Why? Cod only knows.”
Sometimes you make my day. This time I think you made my week.
so is Norman Ornstein’s understanding of the Constitution and the Separation of Powers!
The end of Chevron literally puts the responsibility BACK onto the Legislature where it belongs, and not on the judiciary, by forcing them to do their actual job and write laws that actually mean what they say.
The Supremes with Diana Ross had it all over the Supremes with John Roberts. Ross' group sang in unison. Roberts' bumbling group has been diluted by appointing imbeciles to the bench. No wonder they can't collectively carry a tune.
i live in michiganistan, which is very similar to canada. i have no excuse why i am still here even as the deep state cabal destroys this once great state. as for canada....it's in even worse shape than michigan but has all those resources to lean on ....IF it can somehow shake the grip of woke.
Canada is not going to shake the grip of woke because Canada was and is and will likely always be a centre-left country. Why? A major reason is the many, many social programs (entitlements) that we have and the list keeps expanding. We now have a national dental program, for low earners and seniors. Dentists, surprisingly, are not thrilled about joining this program. We area also going to have a national school lunch program and a national day care program. We have had government daycare in Quebec since 1997. It started at $5 a day and now it's about $10 a day. (It's the only program that benefits the middle class and we do pay for it, believe me.) It drove most of the private daycares out of business. My kids were on the wait list for over three years. We ended up hiring a nanny. It costs several billion every year. Once these programs start, it's basically impossible to end them. You can't create wealth through re-distribution. You need lower taxes, less red tape and a climate of innovation. Canada has absolutely none of that. Oh, and by the way, Justin has hired 200,000 new civil servants, in his tenure. Even when he is booted out, these jobs will stay. That's Canada in a nutshell. We're polite, though.
Thanks, but I don't think many of the Suberites would like living here full-time. However, Montreal is a great place to live (we've got the joie de vivre) despite its many problems because it's so interesting. Best city in Canada.
So not to be impolite, but just wondering...and really this question is not from snark but truly springs from curiosity: Do you think that Canada never truly broke free from mother Britain, and in fact accepted many of the fleeing royalists from (the newly formed) USA, undergirds the seeming taste for a nanny state?
i had an aunt and uncle in canada and i can tell you they both loved the nanny state, even though they were very very wealthy. the road they lived on in brantford was named after them , only six houses, all related. same business. they all were liberals and still are i assume.
Canada really broke free from Great Britain under Justin's father, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. He got rid of as many vestiges of Great Britain as possible. Examples: the metric system and Canada Day replaced Dominin Day. I think we, as Canadians, just have a very cautious mentality overall compared with Americans ( I am speaking very generally here.) Collectively, Canadians like government safety nets as in entitlements. All of this makes us lean toward a nanny state.
Makes sense. American exceptionalism is founded on our ability to accept risk. The current progressive Left are doing all they can to eradicate that trait, though without full success (as yet).
re: Fidelito Castreau. Of course, Fidelito's parents worshipped at Fidel's feet and spent numerous sojourns in Havana, where they learned the finer points of totalitarianism from the Oracle hisownself. I spent over an hour last night talking to a Canadian friend. It's well known in Canada that in True American Indian fashion, Pierre paid tribute to The Man by sharing Margaret with him freely. Apparently it "took." My friend sent me pictures of Fidel and Fidelito side-by-side. They could be the same man.
re: the Chevron abortion from the 1980s court. If fully printed out, the Federal Register would occupy over 80 feet of shelf space. Because laws and “rules” are constantly being made and almost never taken off the books – and each one either prohibits an action, forces an action or sets limits, the inescapable conclusion is that in the United States, freedom becomes less and less every day.
The “cabinet” agencies all unconstitutionally violate Separation of Powers, take for example IRS: they make the “rules” (legislative), operate courts based on those rules (judicial), and enforce the same rules (executive). FAA does the very same (violate some airspace or run afoul of ATC, and you’ll find out). The Constitution says that Congress shall make the laws, a side effect of which is that it limits production of same to a slow pace, but with the invention of the three-letter agencies, they figured out a way around it.
The United States’ period of greatest innovation was when its gub’ment’s oversight of its people was minimal. People can solve their own problems; they don’t need their nanny – or their daddy – looking over their shoulders 24/7. Any ruling – SCOTUS or otherwise – that helps to bring that about is Just All Right With Me.
Today hopefully the presidential immunity issue will be resolved. I’m sure the heads will be spinning faster than Linda Blair’s in the Exorcist at the legacy news desks. FJB
They have to give immunity to Trump so they can give it their criminal in chief currently incapacitated at our Helm. How convenient that accountability will be neglected again, of the ones that deserve it the most.
I think they going to cut the baby in half, and go with some very delineated “degree” of immunity. That would be a typical CJ Robert’s move. We shall see today.
He is likely trying to scheme a way to get Trump without causing harmful consequences to future presidents. That might be why this decision is taking so long.
Yes it is, however that is for the house to decide. Being president is a difficult job at best, having to look over your shoulder while doing the job would make it impossible.
The Loper decision is the most far-reaching and important in ages. It doesn't look like much but it touches everything the government controls through various agencies and departments, including every stupid regulation since the 1980s.
Right. So don't expect government creeps to just roll over. They can bankrupt honest citizens by forcing a landslide of lawsuits just to enforce the Chevron ruling.
Here's the bullet we just dodged - Loper Bright affirmed would have allowed government agencies to impose a regulation, and decree that we, the regulated, have to pay the costs of enforcing it! If your hair didn't just stand on end, you have no imagination.
They could have stopped there but they went there next step and specifically overruled the odious Chevron case. I see the ensuing litigation all going in the other direction with us peons going to court screaming they can't do that, and getting yes we can right back. The difference now is the court can't just wave their hands shouting Chevron and show us the door.
The Chevron decision should open the doors on Obamacare which was basically written by bureaucrats. The law left the definition of "minimum benefits" to the HHS and Obama knew that they would define most individual policies out of existence. "If you like your insurance - sorry, it won't be around any more."
I hope so, since RINOS can't be bothered to deal with it (Obamacare, that is)!
And we must continue to remind them of those lies to the American people. Paul Ryan is a bigger enemy to liberty than BHO.
Most Republicans are. Wolves in sheep's clothing.
Actors, pretenders, clowns.
My bad. I thought Cher's song was "Gypsys Tramps and Thieves" (similar, I think, though).
As are most written by clerks and lobbyists
The decision is not retroactive
Not automatically, no. But we can expect other cases to be filed to implement the new standard elsewhere.
Bottom Line: to get back any sense of a free society the Deep State must be gutted.
Heads on a pike has a nice ring to it...metaphorically speaking of course...HAHA
For now...
What does "metaphorically speaking" mean, anyway?
Means he doesn’t want a visit from The Feds.
Means when their blood is dripping from it justice will have begun. I make no excuses for what is the deserved treatment and handling of a treasonous enemy who would imprison - if not murder - conservative writers like Don Surber before doing the same to all of us as subscribers. We’re on a list somewhere in the deep state hard drive. I clearly mean “Head on a LITERAL pike”.
Gotta provide some effective disincentive.
Believers in truth would have a natural/spiritual incentive. Lacking that, it is up to a strong justice system - and their God, if they have one.
I'm quoting Steve Bannon from his interview with the State Press Anchor Jonathan Karl over his "heads on a pike" reference about Mayorkas and Fauci...LOL from an old War Room podcast. Its gold
So did SCOTUS just tell the EPA "Go fish!"?
More like, “Get off my boat!”
The Dutch have a lot of proverbs about fishing. Here's one that may fit those so-called "observers": "In troebel water is het goed vissen," meaning: "In murky water the fishing's good."
👍
Good one, David. Don has taught you well.
. . .or "jump in that big lake"
👍
Well, you know what they say about experts: "An expert is a man who can make love 748 different ways but doesn't know any women. " Thank goodness the Supremes cut the "experts" off at the pass.
What is a woman?
p.s. Don’t ask Justice Jackson!
Amen and Amen.
Take that, Woodrow!! Hah!
Woodrow: worst president ever until the arrival of that malignant narcissistic freak Obama. Down with the Administrative State!
Wilson also had a wife who craved power and enabled her enfeebled husband. Sound familiar?
You mean he also had a Dr. Jill? Did she also have the Whitehouse curtains made into dresses?
Well ymmv. Do a web search for Edith Wilson and you can decide. IMHO she is rather plain. And also a second wife.
Great piece, Donald.
On a side note Amy Coney Barrett is on the liberal side of the Court regarding her stupidity via Murthy v. Missouri...
My suspicion is she and KBJ swapped votes
I coulda, woulda, shoulda thought of that (given my suspicious nature)!
Yeah, she does seem to have some deference to federal power still in her. I found this the most disappointing ruling, and the one with greater negative implications going forward. Every citizen and entity should have standing in front of any court where a basic freedom enshrined in the Bill of Rights is being usurped by the government. I'll take theses other rulings, because along with Alito's abortion ruling it begins the roll back of federal meddling in issues they should have no business being involved in, and I am a 10th Amendment guy.
Ditto here, but I have read that the fat lady hasn't sung on this. The ruling pertains to an injunction, not the merits of the underlying argument. There is a chance that it could still turn out well.
🙏🙏🙏
Amen! Her stating that the censorship chilled free speech, forcing people to be silent was ON THEM was the most egregious thing I think I have ever heard in my life!!
She seems to be lead by emotion rather than logic and law. Very frustrating. So much so, I can FEEL it.
I hope I'm wrong, but I think she sheathed her liberal claws until Trump was out of office. I think you should dance with who brung ya!!
My summary of Loper: No Regulation Without Representation.
The secret to deconstructing the deep state lies 99% in removing (completely cutting out) the agencies that compose the administrative government.
Anyone who has tried to troubleshoot an electrical problem on a car understands it is very, very difficult because the wiring runs a million directions, is tightly bundled and difficult to observe through nooks and crannies impossible to reach, and can take a number of different pathways through the gatekeeping components. THAT is how the unelected administrative state works in our three branches of mostly elected representatives. They are impossible to really see and observe, impossible to trace or test for accountability, impossible to repair or fix if not working.
Completely cut out the abject administrative state.
In the meantime, a GOP-controlled Congress could simply curtail or even eliminate funding for said agencies. Provided, of course, that they had the stones to do it. Some of the women there clearly are better-endowed in that regard than most of the men.
Yes, Congress has lost its stones. It seems every role in our government is like water. It takes the path of least resistance causing damage in a location far removed from the source. Then, they waste time and money pointing fingers of blame.
If we need federal agencies, government has gotten too big.
Not a chance. And it’s not about stones. The tentacles of the administrative/deep state run deeply through the political parties. The Republican House caucus is rotten with RINOs, assuring there will never be substantial cuts to any agency. Even if a House majority could someday be mustered to make those cuts, the Democrats in the Senate will surely die on that hill to protect the agencies. The one thing that would undo this calculus is taking away the money Congress can spend. I’m not talking about some film-flam balance budget amendment. That wouldn’t do. Reform will come when Americans finally come to their senses and repeal the 16th Amendment. That limits what the Federal government can borrow. And Congress will finally get around to budgeting seriously. Seriously.
Sure, they could, but they won't. They're being paid not to. Rememver, we're talking about Republicans here.
🤮
Shrugged, a perfect analogy!
You've obviously worked on cars that had electrical problems. I know I have. . .
The dissenters are wrong: "“the majority has turned itself into the country’s administrative czar, taking power away from Congress and regulatory agencies.”"
This is not SCOTUS seizing power from the other two branches. In fact, it reaffirms that Congress has the right and duty to pass the laws AND make the regulations. Congress needs to work harder and better when it passes laws. It empowers Congress to do what they are supposed to be doing. It forces Congress to be more responsible.
Unfortrunately, lobbyists draft a lot of the laws that are sponsored by lazy-ass Congress lizards. They will have to start filling in more detail to please their patrons, if the agencies are being cut out of enforcement. It's going to take many lawsuits before we citizens can enjoy the full benefits of this ruling.
Agreed. But much of what leftist congress writes as law is on purpose…….vague and broad. They know the administrative agencies will write policy and regulations that promote their ideology. Congress was created to be a means for the people to say what they want their country to be. Both sides of the aisle know what the administrative state is and can do. If you don’t agree with that, then tell me why the GOP has not done a single thing to rein in or change it? The decisions being discussed here by SCOTUS are judicial changes. Congress could have fixed all of them previously if they had wanted. We need to elect better people and demand they listen to us.
And to slow down the permanent torrent of new laws -- hopefully.
Amen!
I don't know . . . that John Candy marathon was very tempting to escape some of the current news environment post debate, but I deferred to toasting our Canadian friends.
Amen.
It doesn’t come funnier than you, Don. “But that is how these government experts think — bass ackwards. Well, in this case herring ackwards because they fish for herring. Why? Cod only knows.”
Sometimes you make my day. This time I think you made my week.
And speaking of “bass ackwards”,
so is Norman Ornstein’s understanding of the Constitution and the Separation of Powers!
The end of Chevron literally puts the responsibility BACK onto the Legislature where it belongs, and not on the judiciary, by forcing them to do their actual job and write laws that actually mean what they say.
Thanks
Yep…as soon as I read “herring ackwards”, I smelt something fishy coming afterwards.
Don brings out the best in us, doesn't he?
Good catch, so to speak.
That's what I'm talking about. He is punderful.
The Supremes with Diana Ross had it all over the Supremes with John Roberts. Ross' group sang in unison. Roberts' bumbling group has been diluted by appointing imbeciles to the bench. No wonder they can't collectively carry a tune.
Diana.
Thanks. Fixed it.
i live in michiganistan, which is very similar to canada. i have no excuse why i am still here even as the deep state cabal destroys this once great state. as for canada....it's in even worse shape than michigan but has all those resources to lean on ....IF it can somehow shake the grip of woke.
Canada is not going to shake the grip of woke because Canada was and is and will likely always be a centre-left country. Why? A major reason is the many, many social programs (entitlements) that we have and the list keeps expanding. We now have a national dental program, for low earners and seniors. Dentists, surprisingly, are not thrilled about joining this program. We area also going to have a national school lunch program and a national day care program. We have had government daycare in Quebec since 1997. It started at $5 a day and now it's about $10 a day. (It's the only program that benefits the middle class and we do pay for it, believe me.) It drove most of the private daycares out of business. My kids were on the wait list for over three years. We ended up hiring a nanny. It costs several billion every year. Once these programs start, it's basically impossible to end them. You can't create wealth through re-distribution. You need lower taxes, less red tape and a climate of innovation. Canada has absolutely none of that. Oh, and by the way, Justin has hired 200,000 new civil servants, in his tenure. Even when he is booted out, these jobs will stay. That's Canada in a nutshell. We're polite, though.
And loved by most ,Lu Ann.
Thanks, but I don't think many of the Suberites would like living here full-time. However, Montreal is a great place to live (we've got the joie de vivre) despite its many problems because it's so interesting. Best city in Canada.
Planning a trip there in late fall or during Christmas holiday.
As they said about East Berlin, "nice place to visit."
No, we are not East Berlin.
"Free stuff" is quite addictive, sadly LuAnn.
So not to be impolite, but just wondering...and really this question is not from snark but truly springs from curiosity: Do you think that Canada never truly broke free from mother Britain, and in fact accepted many of the fleeing royalists from (the newly formed) USA, undergirds the seeming taste for a nanny state?
i had an aunt and uncle in canada and i can tell you they both loved the nanny state, even though they were very very wealthy. the road they lived on in brantford was named after them , only six houses, all related. same business. they all were liberals and still are i assume.
Yup, donald. It goes like that lots of times.
Canada really broke free from Great Britain under Justin's father, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. He got rid of as many vestiges of Great Britain as possible. Examples: the metric system and Canada Day replaced Dominin Day. I think we, as Canadians, just have a very cautious mentality overall compared with Americans ( I am speaking very generally here.) Collectively, Canadians like government safety nets as in entitlements. All of this makes us lean toward a nanny state.
Makes sense. American exceptionalism is founded on our ability to accept risk. The current progressive Left are doing all they can to eradicate that trait, though without full success (as yet).
re: Fidelito Castreau. Of course, Fidelito's parents worshipped at Fidel's feet and spent numerous sojourns in Havana, where they learned the finer points of totalitarianism from the Oracle hisownself. I spent over an hour last night talking to a Canadian friend. It's well known in Canada that in True American Indian fashion, Pierre paid tribute to The Man by sharing Margaret with him freely. Apparently it "took." My friend sent me pictures of Fidel and Fidelito side-by-side. They could be the same man.
re: the Chevron abortion from the 1980s court. If fully printed out, the Federal Register would occupy over 80 feet of shelf space. Because laws and “rules” are constantly being made and almost never taken off the books – and each one either prohibits an action, forces an action or sets limits, the inescapable conclusion is that in the United States, freedom becomes less and less every day.
The “cabinet” agencies all unconstitutionally violate Separation of Powers, take for example IRS: they make the “rules” (legislative), operate courts based on those rules (judicial), and enforce the same rules (executive). FAA does the very same (violate some airspace or run afoul of ATC, and you’ll find out). The Constitution says that Congress shall make the laws, a side effect of which is that it limits production of same to a slow pace, but with the invention of the three-letter agencies, they figured out a way around it.
The United States’ period of greatest innovation was when its gub’ment’s oversight of its people was minimal. People can solve their own problems; they don’t need their nanny – or their daddy – looking over their shoulders 24/7. Any ruling – SCOTUS or otherwise – that helps to bring that about is Just All Right With Me.
Can't wait to vote Conservative (not overly confident in their abilities) but they'll be better than Justin and his Liberals.
Results can improve if we can differentiate between conservative and republican.
The FAA is one of the worst. Just go after a controller who abused his power sometime and find out what happens afterward, even when you are right.
"We need protection from the government, not the protection of the government."
Isn't that what the Constitution and specifically the first 10 Amendments is/are all about?
("Cod only knows." ---Coffee spew on aisle 11.)
Government’s SOLE DUTY is to PROTECT our RIGHTS, not abuse and trample them.
They are out of control and totally rogue when it comes to their Constitutional oaths and duties.
Today hopefully the presidential immunity issue will be resolved. I’m sure the heads will be spinning faster than Linda Blair’s in the Exorcist at the legacy news desks. FJB
They have to give immunity to Trump so they can give it their criminal in chief currently incapacitated at our Helm. How convenient that accountability will be neglected again, of the ones that deserve it the most.
I think they going to cut the baby in half, and go with some very delineated “degree” of immunity. That would be a typical CJ Robert’s move. We shall see today.
President should have absolute immunity otherwise they cannot function. If they commit a crime they can be impeached.
Exactamundo! That’s precisely why the Framers put that in the Constitution.
And that very point was brought up in Oral Arguments over this case. I just don’t trust Roberts on this one to go full immunity.
He is likely trying to scheme a way to get Trump without causing harmful consequences to future presidents. That might be why this decision is taking so long.
I think ordering the extra-judicial killing of US citizens qualifies as a "high crime or misdemeanor".
Yes it is, however that is for the house to decide. Being president is a difficult job at best, having to look over your shoulder while doing the job would make it impossible.
The Loper decision is the most far-reaching and important in ages. It doesn't look like much but it touches everything the government controls through various agencies and departments, including every stupid regulation since the 1980s.
Buckle up!
Right. So don't expect government creeps to just roll over. They can bankrupt honest citizens by forcing a landslide of lawsuits just to enforce the Chevron ruling.
Here's the bullet we just dodged - Loper Bright affirmed would have allowed government agencies to impose a regulation, and decree that we, the regulated, have to pay the costs of enforcing it! If your hair didn't just stand on end, you have no imagination.
They could have stopped there but they went there next step and specifically overruled the odious Chevron case. I see the ensuing litigation all going in the other direction with us peons going to court screaming they can't do that, and getting yes we can right back. The difference now is the court can't just wave their hands shouting Chevron and show us the door.
Now they have to put up or shut up.