Supreme Court overturns Chevron decision

[Tesorodeoro]

This is a big one folks. Google it.

Might affect mining/environmental regulations, but they would have to be legally challenged before they would change them.

 

[russau]

Read and understand what you've just read BEFORE making any comments on this subject ! It is important to know that our comments have been copied and taken out of context and introduced to the Courts of the United States of America Against us ,and the wacoenviromentalist's won !!!! Think about it before you put it into hard copy! The West coast wacoenviromentalist's HAMMERED US BECAUSE OF IT !!! and we are still fighting these affect's from it TODAY ! There are other's that are on this site that know more intimate details about this than I do ! BUT if you like mining and dredging now is the time to do your part ! (again in some instance's for some people ) We are next again with their way of thinking !! MANY THANKS TO TESORODERO for bringing this to our attention ! Jerry Hobbs will be rolling over in his grave over this ! GOD BLESS JERRY HOBBS

 

[crumbaker]

Curious how this could apply to dredging on BLM land, but essentially it seems like it might be a separate issue than this if states are allowed to regulate federal land within their state borders. Were the dredge bans state issued (California, Oregon) or were those imposed by a federal agency specifically in reference to the BLM land.

 

[crumbaker]

The connection is with any agencies that are involved with say permits / fees/ policies, both State and Fed.

It's more than that though. Basically it applies to any rule imposed by any federal agency that can't be directly linked to a law passed by congress. A huge question will be how it applies to state and local governments, I haven't come across a good explanation within the ruling to define that. Been following this for awhile, and the impact it will have on the IRS and EPA let alone all other government agencies will be massive.

 

[russau]

CB believe what you want ! BUT look at how the FS interpreted the 1872 mining laws........ they wrote in "their rules" on how to handle what "they" want and how we are to follow "their rules" ! NOT what they 1872 mining law say's about OUR RIGHT"S ! When the wacoenviromentalist's get going on something , other than what they want , they will gang up on you in the Court's ! If your a listed claim owner , you'll never keep them from snooping around looking for something to hang you on ! there's a lot going on and if your not up on the laws they'll cite you for something trivial !

 

[Tesorodeoro]

Folks affected by unconstitutional interpretations of law will likely be best served if they unite and move forward in a very strategic manner as a large group.

 

[jeff of pa]

I tried to figure it out earlier.
goes over my head.
When I original heard the word Chevron, I Thought it was the name for the Chevy emblem

 

[DizzyDigger]

.

 

[Assembler]

Read and understand what you've just read BEFORE making any comments on this subject ! It is important to know that our comments have been copied and taken out of context and introduced to the Courts of the United States of America Against us ,and the wacoenviromentalist's won !!!! Think about it before you put it into hard copy! The West coast wacoenviromentalist's HAMMERED US BECAUSE OF IT !!! and we are still fighting these affect's from it TODAY ! There are other's that are on this site that know more intimate details about this than I do ! BUT if you like mining and dredging now is the time to do your part ! (again in some instance's for some people ) We are next again with their way of thinking !! MANY THANKS TO TESORODERO for bringing this to our attention ! Jerry Hobbs will be rolling over in his grave over this ! GOD BLESS JERRY HOBBS

This has now been all over the news if you look for it. Maybe a good idea to tune into others that pick up on this as well as the notices that will be used in that process..........just saying.

 

[Assembler]

What some are already pointing out about "Chevron case":

Chevron deference is the latitude federal judges give agencies over how to interpret the statutes they administer when a dispute arises. Some 40 years ago, the Supreme Court articulated a relatively simple two-part test?

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan predicted that Friday's ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.”

The petition for certiorari to the Court specifically questioned whether Chevron should be overturned, and it was. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn Chevron in the Loper Bright decision on a 6-3 vote issued June 28, 2024.

Experts say the end result of the decision to overturn Chevron will be increased power for the courts and less for the executive branch. The decision to overturn Chevron fulfills a long-held wish of conservative groups that seek a smaller role for the federal government.

 

[russau]

There has been several Nation wide groups that has tried to group everyone together and were successful to a point ! Jerry Hobbs was one of them and most every other group was in the N. West U.S.A. BUT I don't hear or see anything anymore ? Why is that ? A lot of people rode their shirt tails with these groups and that didn't help anything !!!

 

[Assembler]

There has been several Nation wide groups that has tried to group everyone together and were successful to a point ! Jerry Hobbs was one of them and most every other group was in the N. West U.S.A. BUT I don't hear or see anything anymore ? Why is that ? A lot of people rode their shirt tails with these groups and that didn't help anything !!!

Don't know all of the particulars. I would venture to say that going down the path of group thinking with out doing due diligence happened with each person attached on the shirt tales.

 

[M.E.G.]

 

[M.E.G.]

 

[Assembler]

The popular argument is:
The idea behind such deference is that expert agencies, accountable to an elected president, are better suited than federal judges to make the policy choices that Congress left open.

 

[ToddsPoint]

In the 80s I had a federal firearms license. 01, dealer in firearms. I was a stock maker, engraver, and refinisher. I only needed an 01 license to do business. I purchased old guns and restored them. New wood, engraving and refinishing, then I sold them. Then, in 2000 the ATF changed the rules. They said I was “manufacturing guns” and needed an expensive manufacturers license. The gun control act of 1968 made no distinction like they interpreted. The ATF stretched the intent of congress and de facto made new law. I believe I could sue the ATF under the new Chevron ruling. Unfortunately, I’m too old now to continue my former activities. All of these “rules” (read, New Laws) put forth by alphabet agencies are now subject to judicial review. It’s about damn time! We’re getting regulated to death without representation. We need to cut off the legs of the alphabet agencies.

 

[russau]

SOOOOOOO , If I want to refinish and repair my (you said , you bought these guns and repaired them and then sold them) Gun and sold it , then I would need this Federal manufacturing license ? If that holds up in any court , then there are a LOT of people that are violating this "new law". this sounds a LOT FISHY on the ATF . I wonder if some lawyer could give us a pointer or two on this "NEW LAW".

 

[Assembler]

SOOOOOOO , If I want to refinish and repair my (you said , you bought these guns and repaired them and then sold them) Gun and sold it , then I would need this Federal manufacturing license ? If that holds up in any court , then there are a LOT of people that are violating this "new law". this sounds a LOT FISHY on the ATF . I wonder if some lawyer could give us a pointer or two on this "NEW LAW".

May not be as clear cut as you think because Chevron deference recognized the expertise of scientists, economists, and other specialists within federal agencies. The new standard created by SCOTUS requires that courts take agency interpretation into account, but the court need not defer fully to agency interpretations.

 

[southfork]

May not be as clear cut as you think because Chevron deference recognized the expertise of scientists, economists, and other specialists within federal agencies. The new standard created by SCOTUS requires that courts take agency interpretation into account, but the court need not defer fully to agency interpretations.

Every time I read one of your posts it's like I'm on another planet.

 

[Assembler]

Every time I read one of your posts it's like I'm on another planet.

Well this topic is somewhat removed from digging up rocks and enjoying being out doors................