The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a landmark 40-year-old decision that gave federal agencies broad regulatory power, upending their authority to issue regulations unless Congress has spoken clearly.

  • Adalast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    What gets me is part of Project 2025 is planning on reclassifying all of the workers in the exact agencies this affects with sycophants and yes-men. As I understand it, the entire idea of that move is that Trump and the GOP can bypass Congress and the courts and essentially rule however they want.

    Doesn’t this decision run counter to that? Instead of allowing the regulatory bodies that are going to be sycophantilized to just run shot over their domains, now the risk having a non-sympathetic judge or an unfavorable swing in voting in Congress?

  • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    You know, eventually, after we’ve seen enough of this shit, I feel like there’s a point we have to ask…will no one rid us of these turbulent justices?

    • tate@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Dred Scott?

      Sometimes precedent is plain wrong.

      ETA: not in this instance though. This was a time they should have respected precedent.

  • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Because letting jackasses in congress set regulatory precedent on things they know jack shit about has always worked out

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The goal is for regulations to be held up via congressional deadlock by the obstructionist party. Can’t make a good or bad decision if you can’t make a decision at all.

      • carbonari_sandwich@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        And this is a massive increase in authority for the courts. If there is ambiguity in the wording of a law, it’s open for a lawsuit.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The dissent on the “it’s a gratuity, not a bribe lol” decision shows that ambiguity isn’t even necessary. Same with the bump stocks ruling. And seceral before that.

          The conservatives will pretend there is ambiguity and write pages of rambling pseudo logic no matter how clear the law is.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    There’s one way to fix this… elect a landslide blue majority in the HoR and Senate and redefine explicitly the role of every federal agency. That way Republicans in the future can’t weaponize doing nothing as easily.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Removing the filibuster so those things can be accomplished even if the Republicans have 41 Senators will also be necessary. That is what led to the minor improvements in the ACA instead of actually implementing something better like single payer healthcare.