TYB
Aussie Cossack
@aussiecossack
🚨🇰🇵🇷🇺Vladimir Putin was awarded the highest state award of North Korea - the Order of Kim Il Sung.
https://x.com/aussiecossack/status/1803609441155293276
WikiLeaks
@wikileaks
The US is getting mobilised to free Julian Assange: #LetHimGoJoe
https://x.com/wikileaks/status/1803612979184730495
Aussie Cossack
@aussiecossack
🚨🇻🇳🇷🇺Putin arrives to another red carpet welcome in Vietnam.
https://x.com/aussiecossack/status/1803613201709539668
This is not new, Q mentioned it in SIDLEY AUSTIN drop 238
If thrown out the case will change how government look at what constitutes pollution or environmental damage.
ARGUMENT ANALYSIS
Supreme Court likely to discard Chevron
By Amy Howe
on Jan 17, 2024 at 6:58 pm
FacebookLinkedInTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare
Man speaking before full bench of justices
Roman Martinez argues for Relentless, Inc. (William Hennessy)
It has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. After more than three-and-a-half hours of oral argument on Wednesday, it seemed unlikely that the rule outlined in that case, known as the Chevron doctrine, will survive in its current form. A majority of the justices seemed ready to jettison the doctrine or at the very least significantly limit it.
The court’s ruling could have ripple effects across the federal government, where agencies frequently use highly trained experts to interpret and implement federal laws. Although the doctrine was relatively noncontroversial when it was first introduced in 1984, in recent years conservatives – including some members of the Supreme Court – have called for it to be overruled.
The plea to overturn the Chevron doctrine came to the court in two cases challenging a rule, issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service, that requires the herring industry to bear the costs of observers on fishing boats. Applying Chevron, both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld the rule, finding it to be a reasonable interpretation of federal law.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/
JohnnyBeBad1
@JohnnyBeBad1
Jan 14th 2024
·
·
Q Research
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…
I haven't found a result for the case or if it has concluded? Still looking.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/
But Justice Brett Kavanaugh saw Chevron’s deference to agencies differently. Chevron, he complained, “ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in” and implements “massive change” in areas like securities law, communications law, and environmental law.
True the Vote
@TrueTheVote
JUST IN: Michigan Dems pass bill preventing board canvassers from investigating election fraud.
VID in link: https://x.com/TrueTheVote/status/1803623773100265528
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/management/2024/06/supreme-court-case-that-could-change-40-years-of-how-government-operates/
Tom Temin And you have written to that proponents who say that overturning Chevron would force Congress to write more specific laws so these questions wouldn’t come up like, yes, you can specifically regulate CO2 or no, you can’t if you’re the EPA and so on. Or, you know, is that puddle really a U.S. waterway, this kind of thing? But you’re arguing that it actually may not be the case that Congress would be forced to write more and more specific laws.
Tom Temin And this case could be decided. The decision could come out as early as today.
Daniel Walters That’s right. Any time between today and sort of the end of June is a possible outcome.
[It must be getting close]