The Supreme Court just created a nightmare for the courts, I foresee thousand of never ending court cases.
Congress passed off the development of regulations to agencies because they knew that Congress will bogged down passing laws on what type of paint can be used. For each new type of paint that is developed Congress will have to vote on it.
And all this leads to the Republican goal of doing away with regulatory agencies.
Do you know how many federal regulations there are? There are millions. When I was working I had to know everything about 10CFR do you know how many there are? I don’t but I know that there ae volumes, and volumes of them and that is just one agency. Now each and everyone one of them can be challenged in court… not just once but over and over again.Supreme Court lets a truck stop sue the Federal Reserve in latest threat to agency regulations
AP News
By John Fritze, CNN
July 1, 2024The Supreme Court on Monday revived a lawsuit by a North Dakota truck stop that is challenging the fees banks can charge for debit-card transactions in a ruling that could have deeper implications for other government regulations.
The decision was the latest from the Supreme Court this term that would make it easier for industries to challenge what conservative critics describe as the “administrative state.”
“Today’s ruling is especially significant in light of Friday’s decision overruling Chevron, because it means that even old agency rules can be challenged anew so long as they produce any contemporary harm,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
“In other words, even understandings of agency authority that are a half-century old can now be challenged on the ground that some recent agency action, however minor, has injured a plaintiff, ” Vladeck added. “Given how much Friday’s ruling in Loper Bright destabilizes administrative law, today’s ruling applies that destabilization retroactively.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasted the decision in her dissent.
“The flawed reasoning and far-reaching results of the Court’s ruling in this case are staggering,” Jackson wrote.
“The majority refuses to accept the straightforward, commonsense, and singularly plausible reading of the limitations statute that Congress wrote. In doing so, the Court wreaks havoc on Government agencies, businesses, and society at large,” she added. “At the end of a momentous Term, this much is clear: The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court’s holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government.”
And all this leads to the Republican goal of doing away with regulatory agencies.
In another Supreme Court case is now seeing results, in the case of presidential immunity.
Donald Trump's lawyers have asked for the former US president's conviction in his hush money criminal case to be set aside and his sentencing this month delayed, American media report.A letter sent by Trump's lawyers to the New York judge presiding over the trial reportedly cites Monday's Supreme Court ruling that granted the former president immunity from prosecution for official actions he took while in office.In May, Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records. He will be sentenced on 11 July.He signed off the records during his White House tenure in 2017, which his lawyers say should be taken into account.Last year lawyers similarly argued that the allegations in the case involved official acts within the colour of his presidential duties.
Gee, I never knew paying off a stripper was part of the president's duties?
However, a federal judge wrote that Trump had failed to show that his conduct was "for or relating to any act performed by or for the President under [colour] of the official acts of a president".
Trump throws legal sh*t and sees what sticks.
Trump's lawyers sent the letter to New York Judge Juan Merchan on Monday, US media report.The lawyers argue that the Supreme Court’s latest decision confirmed the defence position in the New York case that some prosecution evidence should not have been allowed because this constituted official presidential acts.
Call me dense but I just don't see how fudging the corporate books comes under the job description of a president.
Update: 4:00 PM
It has already started...
Trump sentencing in hush money case is postponed until September after Supreme Court immunity rulingCNNBy Paula Reid, Lauren del Valle, Kara Scannell and Jeremy HerbJuly 2, 2024Donald Trump will not be sentenced on his business fraud conviction until September, a New York judge ruled Tuesday in the wake of Monday’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.The delay in sentencing means that the former president is likely to escape any concrete punishment for his felony conviction during the summer, at the same time that Trump’s election bid has been boosted by President Joe Biden’s debate flop that has Democrats wondering whether to replace their nominee.[...]The announcement underscores the far-reaching implications of Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, in which the court’s conservative wing found that presidents have absolute immunity for “core” presidential duties.
It also throws other cases into doubt.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office on Tuesday agreed the sentencing should be delayed.“Although we believe defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion. We respectfully request a deadline of July 24, 2024—two weeks after defendant’s requested deadline—to file and serve a response,” the DA said in a letter Tuesday.The former president’s lawyers argued that the ruling confirmed their position that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg should not have been allowed to offer evidence at the trial regarding Trump’s “official acts” and, as a result, the jury’s guilty verdict should be set aside.
So he is saying that because they used tainted evidence the case should be thrown out. I don't buy that that the very least there should be a new trial. However, I don't think they need a new trial after all this case was about fudging the books, not what he did as president.
No comments:
Post a Comment