SCOTUS thread

[teachercd]

I am still in a bit of shock that ALL OF A SUDDEN we think that the "experts" in the field should be the ones creating guidelines.  

Because when it comes to education that sure is not the case...or is it?

Trust me, experts in education dealing with education topics are way more important and vital than some dong who studies trees and tells us that if we cut down trees and don't plant new trees that our tree supply will die off.  

Please don't reply to this with the classic "Who is saying there, can you show me the exact post that says EXACTLY what you just said" bit.  

That bit is more tired than a Foghat concert. 

 

[Scarlet]

What could have possibly changed?

 

[teachercd]

Me:  Like when it comes to education, the teachers, who are the experts should really be deciding things.

Normies:  OH MY GOD!  NO, what!  EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A SAY!

_____________________________________________________________________

Fast forward a few days:

Normies:  OH MY GOD!  The SC is RUINING EVERYTHING, only EXPERTS should be consulted on deciding things!

I mean, at least give me my props, for being right, again.

Okay, I am off to Jiffy Lube to try and convince the guys that work their that I know what the f#&% they are talking about when I hand them my debit card and pin number because my "johnson rod" needs to be replaced. 

 

[Mierin]

Me:  Like when it comes to education, the teachers, who are the experts should really be deciding things.

Normies:  OH MY GOD!  NO, what!  EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A SAY!

_____________________________________________________________________

Fast forward a few days:

Normies:  OH MY GOD!  The SC is RUINING EVERYTHING, only EXPERTS should be consulted on deciding things!

I mean, at least give me my props, for being right, again.

Okay, I am off to Jiffy Lube to try and convince the guys that work their that I know what the f#&% they are talking about when I hand them my debit card and pin number because my "johnson rod" needs to be replaced. 

Do you know who decides whether a school board should be elected by the public?

 

[teachercd]

Do you know who decides whether a school board should be elected by the public?

State government in most states.  

It started back in New England though, like 300 years ago.  I am not sure if it is different in each state.

I don't mind the election part...just make a requirement that the people running have to be in education and/or have a teaching degree.

 

[teachercd]

And just to be clear, I am poking fun.  

 

[Archy1221]

What could have possibly changed?

Do you think Obama and Trump should be charged for the innocents killed with drone strikes?   
Do you believe Congress should be able to be sued for Libel or Slander for what they say during hearings?   

 

[Mierin]

Do you think Obama and Trump should be charged for the innocents killed with drone strikes?   
Do you believe Congress should be able to be sued for Libel or Slander for what they say during hearings?   

Have presidents/members of congress had those things happen to them before?

 

[Archy1221]

Have presidents/members of congress had those things happen to them before?

They have immunity from them. Meaning they currently are above the law.  And have been I should add. 

 

[Born N Bled Red]

The executive branch should not and cannot have absolute authority on how to interpret laws made by Congress.   This is why Chevron was decided the way it was.   People having a hissy fit about Chevron have blinders on thinking the bureaucrats have zero power in deciding how to interpret the laws they are tasked at implementing.   They now don’t have the unchecked power they previously enjoyed.  

The executive branch never has had absolute authority. The executive branch interprets, administers, and enforces. The courts are there to rule if the law, as interpreted and applied by the executive branch, is in line with the intent of the law. Chevron never gave the executive branch absolute authority and to suggest and argue otherwise, when you know better, is asinine, in poor faith, and rudimentary parroting of talking points. Bad take. 

 

[Archy1221]

The executive branch never has had absolute authority. The executive branch interprets, administers, and enforces. The courts are there to rule if the law, as interpreted and applied by the executive branch, is in line with the intent of the law. Chevron never gave the executive branch absolute authority and to suggest and argue otherwise, when you know better, is asinine, in poor faith, and rudimentary parroting of talking points. Bad take. 

 

So tell me, what does the Chevron ruling now do?   Are bureaurocrats no longer able to interpret law? 

 

[Born N Bled Red]

Joe Biden: "In my first official act under the new authority granted to the Presidency by the Supreme Court. I am canceling the 2024 election do to lack of a viable candidate from another major party. This is an official act of the Office of the President of the United States."

 

[teachercd]

Have presidents/members of congress had those things happen to them before?

Not in America that I know of...Bush was supposed stand trial with the international court but that will never happen.

Joe Biden: "In my first official act under the new authority granted to the Presidency by the Supreme Court. I am canceling the 2024 election do to lack of a viable candidate from another major party. This is an official act of the Office of the President of the United States."

For real though, he could do that.

 

[Archy1221]

Joe Biden: "In my first official act under the new authority granted to the Presidency by the Supreme Court. I am canceling the 2024 election do to lack of a viable candidate from another major party. This is an official act of the Office of the President of the United States."

Good thing that is outside his limited constitutional powers 

 

[Danny Bateman]

While I don't disagree, the question that @knapplc raised is of the previous system was the best we could do given the obvious constrains Congress has when writting laws.

We traded "annoying bureaucrats get it right most of the time" to "exploitable, non-experts making political choices where they have no business making them".

While not perfect, one system is preferable to another.

Why are we presuming Republicans are operating in good faith? They were already inplementing this system prior to this ruling.

Republican EOs in red states have been passing laws eroding their citizens freedoms by taking decision making away from actual experts (medical professionals) and passing it to activists (politicians and religious zealots) wherever they can after Roe fell. Explicitly because Sky Daddy told them to. f#&% your freedoms.

The judiciary should be understood to be doing whatever is in the best interests of those pulling the strings in the GOP. Any argument otherwise is just a red herring trying to appear reasonable.