Did the Hare have dive gear on for the race?
Notable :…
Why did Q mention SIDLEY AUSTIN…??? It's about NET ZERO… Seems important in the grand scheme of Climate Change Agenda.
Is the End Really Nigh?
An Assessment of Oral Argument in the Chevron Deference Cases, and Projections of Possible Impacts Across the Regulatory Space
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two cases putting at issue the continued viability of the Chevron doctrine. Join Sidley's Regulatory Litigation group and leading appellate and regulatory practitioners for a discussion of the Chevron cases. Sidley lawyers will discuss the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, where the justices may be heading, how possible outcomes may impact various federal agencies and regulatory disciplines, and identifying the key doctrines, precedents, and practices in each space that rely on Chevron.
PANELISTS
4:00 p.m. ET | What we heard and where the Court is likely going.
David R. Carpenter, Moderator
Kwaku A. Akowuah
Tacy F. Flint
4:30 p.m. ET | Impact of possible outcomes on federal agencies.
Gordon D. Todd, Moderator
https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/events/2024/01/is-the-end-really-nigh
What is "Chevron deference" …???
Looks like it's all about what the manufacturing industry regulations consider to be a SAUCE of pollution, specifically air pollution. So, this goes to the core of the CO2 argument.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test for when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute.[1] The decision articulated a doctrine now known as "Chevron deference".[2] Chevron deference consists of a two-part test that is deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."
The decision involved a legal challenge to a change in the U.S. government's interpretation of the word "source" in the Clean Air Act of 1963. The Act did not precisely define what constituted a "source" of air pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initially defined "source" to cover essentially any significant change or addition to a plant or factory. In 1981, the EPA changed its definition to be mean only an entire plant or factory. This allowed companies to build new projects without going through the EPA's lengthy new review process if they simultaneously modified other parts of their plant to reduce emissions so that the overall change in the plant's emissions was zero. Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmentalist advocacy group, successfully challenged the legality of the EPA's new definition.[3]
Chevron is one of the most important decisions in U.S. administrative law. It has been cited in thousands of cases since its issuance in 1984.[4]
Thirty-nine years later, in May 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to reevaluate Chevron. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451. A decision is expected in the first half of 2024.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.
The case will be coming up before the Supreme Court mid 2024. Look out for this one, I suspect if Q called it out, it's because it's going to be a lose for Deep State/WEF pundits and a big win for western manufacturing. We will see, but this looks BIGLY…
Supreme Court Looks Set to Reform Governing, End 40-Year ‘Constitutional Revolution’
Jon DoughertyJanuary 21, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court heard two cases last week that could mark the end of what observers have described as a four-decade “constitutional revolution” that began during the Reagan administration.
Specifically, decisions in the cases could substantially change how federal agencies are permitted to interpret laws passed by Congress by dramatically reigning in their ability to issue rules that have the binding effect of legislation.
According to Thomas M. Boyd, a former US assistant attorney general who served under President Ronald Reagan, Justice John Paul Stephens wrote an opinion in the case of Chevron U.S.A. v. National Resources Defense Council in 1984, midway through Reagan’s two terms, which started what legal scholar Gary Lawson would later describe as “nothing less than a bloodless constitutional revolution.”
The ruling fundamentally changed the way federal agencies could interpret laws they considered to be “ambiguous.” Following this decision, subsequent presidential administrations utilized it to enforce policies that effectively functioned as laws, often deviating from the exact wording of the legislation passed by Congress.
But now, Boyd noted in a column for the New York Post, “At long last, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear two cases that may signal the beginning of the end to that revolution.”
Boyd noted that Article I of the Constitution says explicitly, “All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”—not federal regulatory agencies.
However, he adds, Justice Stephens’ opinion found that “agenc[ies] may . . . properly rely upon the incumbent administration’s views of wise policy” in “reasonably” defining statutory ambiguities.
In simpler terms, Stephens believed that the Executive Branch, including presidents and their appointees, had the power to determine the specific interpretations of certain aspects of laws enacted by the Legislative Branch.
That, Boyd noted, was at the center of the Chevron decision and became known as the “Chevron defense, leading President Ronald Reagan’s White House counsel, Peter Wallison, to describe it as “the single most important reason the administrative state has continued to grow out of control.”
Boyd writes: “Forty years of regulatory and judicial tumult have ensued, finally crescendoing to a point that has compelled the Supreme Court to intervene.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, from the District of Columbia Circuit, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce, from the First Circuit, are now before the court. Both are companies that fish for herring in New England and are family-owned and operated, and both are subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs fishery management in federal waters. The act allowed the National Marine Fisheries Service to require herring boats, relatively small vessels that normally carry only five to six people, to also carry federal monitors to enforce its regulations.”
It gets worse.
The former Reagan assistant attorney general mentioned that the agency,without explicit statutory authorization, proceeded to require Loper Bright and Relentless to bear the expenses for the salaries of these monitors. The NMFS estimated these costs at $710 per day, at times exceeding the income generated from a day’s fishing.
Both federal circuit courts ruled that statutory silence on the matter was an “ambiguity” that required the application of the Chevron deference.
But when the Supreme Court accepted certiorari in both cases, justices proposed a two-part question that litigants would be required to address: “Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.”
Boyd noted that some of the court’s current justices—constitutional originalists, in fact—have indicated in previous opinions how they view the matter.
Several have indicated suspicion in allowing federal agencies — and, by definition, the Executive Branch in general— too much leeway in the interpretation of laws, giving them nearly limitless power in governing, Boyd noted.
(https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-set-80570/
(I know one thing, is the SC doesn’t take cases based on urgency and if you view the past, they are in some cases politically charged.)
https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-set-80570/
Human shields, as the terrorist playbook requires.
Satan at work
They did try to kill him, so there's that.