SCOTUS

[njbill]

Could be. There really should be a “one screen name per user” rule on this site. Not a tech expert, but I would think it would be rather easy to enforce. ONW has probably a half a dozen or more names, some he has admitted to, some he hasn’t.

[youthathletics]

Other takes on the Chevron Doctrine ruling welcomed?

She communicates this rather well: https://x.com/HannahDCox/status/1806774421195300951
AP Story: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... 7e16669929

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Other takes on the Chevron Doctrine ruling welcomed?

She communicates this rather well: https://x.com/HannahDCox/status/1806774421195300951
AP Story: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... 7e16669929

It's interesting that there are two camps: those like in your first link above focusing on why the ruling is a good one, and what it does and doesn't do. And those focusing on imagined future outcomes which neglect to acknowledge the power to create laws and clear up ambiguous gaps/confusion in laws is now firmly where it should be: with the legislative branch.

Call me skeptical about the integrity, intent, and proclivities for power based activism and overreach by our executive branch agencies. No idea how my little brain came up with such a negative read.

Yesterday's ruling was a big win, imho.

Exhibit A regarding executive branch "subject matter expertise" we were all just supposed to accept and shut up about under Chevron's tilted playing field: The ATF clowns. It starts at the top. From a previous post I made here:

ATF Director in his testimony before congress - you should watch every second - is profoundly incapable of answering simple questions posed to him. Couldn't define what an "assault weapon" is, or what elements qualify or disqualify said weapon making it different from other semiautomatic firearms. He incorrectly stated pistol braces converted pistols into short barreled rifles to be fired from the shoulder, therefore they should be treated as such, quite literally being so wrong he should have resigned in shame. The ATF, you recall, wrote a letter in 2017 stating bump stocks were legal accessories and didn't create machine guns/automatic rifles from semiautomatic rifles.

In a now infamous interview with CBS, Director Dettelbach misuses "clip" and "magazine". That would be like the CEO of a tech company not knowing the difference between WiFi and Ethernet. During the same interview, he turns it over to Chris Bort, his firearms expert and a top lieutenant at ATF. Mr. Bort is the head of ATF's Firearms Ammunition Technology Division. On national TV, Mr. Bort is unable to accomplish the first step of a field strip - removing the slide - of the most ubiquitous pistol in America - a glock. As he hamfistedly monkey fondles the firearm, he repeatedly places his finger on and inside the trigger guard. Oh, and he didn't clear the firearm when he picked it up off the table. That breaks a golden rule of gun safety.

A bit of further research into the expertise of the ATF in handling firearms was the time that an ATF gun-destruction facility in West Virginia had thousands of guns and gun parts stolen from it - you know, the guns that end up in the hands of criminals.

Let's blindly yield our rights and get talked down to (or made overnight criminals) due to overreaching rulings or redefinitions/interpretations by agencies and clowns like these two. In many cases, the overreach is driven by partisan activist goals instituted because the legislative branch told the executive branch leader or agencies "NO". Three branches of government. Checks and balances. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

[njbill]

It’s a bad decision.

Is it possible that there are occasional overreaches and misapplications of the law by the government agencies? Sure. But in those relatively rare instances, the courts or the Congress can step in and correct the mistake. The idea that this S Ct wants to disregard the expertise of scientists, financial experts, doctors, engineers, etc. is really bad for this country.

Do you want Clarence Thomas telling you what drugs are safe?

[a fan]

It’s a bad decision.

Is it possible that there are occasional overreaches and misapplications of the law by the government agencies? Sure. But in those relatively rare instances, the courts or the Congress can step in and correct the mistake. The idea that this S Ct wants to disregard the expertise of scientists, financial experts, doctors, engineers, etc. is really bad for this country.

Do you want Clarence Thomas telling you what drugs are safe?

This invalidates the CFR's, folks. If you don't understand what that means, don't comment on this ruling. And read up on what just happened, and look at what the Code of Federal Regulations are. Apologies to Ms. Cox, but she's a moron when it comes to this issue.

Modern Republicans have convinced themselves that Federal rules and laws don't protect them or their families, and think that these things are "in the way". They're about to find out the hard way that this isn't true. Yet I promise you, they'll find a way to blame "the libs" for the gutting of the CFR's.

Just one example? I can now sell you Vodka that doesn't contain any alcohol in it, and simply not print it on my label. Why? Because the TTB regulations are what force me to disclose the alcohol content of my spirits, not Congress. It's a rule, not a Congressionally passed law.

Congress better wake up to what just happened, and pass the CFR's into law, because obviously distilleries are just ONE sector that depends on the CFR's.

[RedFromMI]

The Chevron case is a giant power grab by the SC - judges will be making decisions on regulations instead of actual experts in the fields impacted. Easy way to get the regulation (or mostly lack thereof) you want if you control the SC.

This is a massively corrupt court whose only consistency is figuring out the desired result and then finding a was of lying about how it is a textual based decision.

The minority opinions are spot on as to the contortions the nutcases are using to get those decisions.

[Kismet]

The Chevron case is a giant power grab by the SC - judges will be making decisions on regulations instead of actual experts in the fields impacted. Easy way to get the regulation (or mostly lack thereof) you want if you control the SC.

This is a massively corrupt court whose only consistency is figuring out the desired result and then finding a was of lying about how it is a textual based decision.

The minority opinions are spot on as to the contortions the nutcases are using to get those decisions.

Reference the Mifepristone case - find a judge anywhere in the USA who is willing to do your dirty work and rule in your favor.
Just like now you have school officials in OK mandating that the Bible be taught to all students regardless of their beliefs and/or religion.

[a fan]

The Chevron case is a giant power grab by the SC - judges will be making decisions on regulations instead of actual experts in the fields impacted. Easy way to get the regulation (or mostly lack thereof) you want if you control the SC.

This is a massively corrupt court whose only consistency is figuring out the desired result and then finding a was of lying about how it is a textual based decision.

The minority opinions are spot on as to the contortions the nutcases are using to get those decisions.

Well look at the rightie-spin. What the F happened to intellectual conservatives? How'd they get THIS stupid, THIS fast?

Which party and group is supposed to about LAW AND ORDER ????

They now believe that laws are "in the way". Unless, of course, the laws apply to the poor.....shoplifting, abortion access, etc.

[a fan]

Do you want Clarence Thomas telling you what drugs are safe?

They, in fact, do.

Far right Republicans think that when you take away government, happy fuzzy bunnies fill that power void.

Folks: Multinational corporations, with folks like Clarence Thomas in their pockets, are going to be the ones writing the laws that "regulate" their companies.

More sticking it to the working class, who won't have a say in these new laws that regulate mega-corporations, even though the 1%ers in their media feed are promising them that that's what's coming.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Well look at the rightie-spin. What the F happened to intellectual conservatives? How'd they get THIS stupid, THIS fast?

Which party and group is supposed to about LAW AND ORDER ????

They now believe that laws are "in the way". Unless, of course, the laws apply to the poor.....shoplifting, abortion access, etc.

Scalia was a fan of the Chevron ruling. In 8 years the adults in the Republican party have largely been shoved out the door.

And throw in the recent ruling essentially legalizing bribes? We're in for a bumpy road as consumers and citizens. But the elites will make bank as you say.

[youthathletics]

It’s a bad decision.

Is it possible that there are occasional overreaches and misapplications of the law by the government agencies? Sure. But in those relatively rare instances, the courts or the Congress can step in and correct the mistake. The idea that this S Ct wants to disregard the expertise of scientists, financial experts, doctors, engineers, etc. is really bad for this country.

Do you want Clarence Thomas telling you what drugs are safe?

This invalidates the CFR's, folks. If you don't understand what that means, don't comment on this ruling. And read up on what just happened, and look at what the Code of Federal Regulations are. Apologies to Ms. Cox, but she's a moron when it comes to this issue.

Modern Republicans have convinced themselves that Federal rules and laws don't protect them or their families, and think that these things are "in the way". They're about to find out the hard way that this isn't true. Yet I promise you, they'll find a way to blame "the libs" for the gutting of the CFR's.

Just one example? I can now sell you Vodka that doesn't contain any alcohol in it, and simply not print it on my label. Why? Because the TTB regulations are what force me to disclose the alcohol content of my spirits, not Congress. It's a rule, not a Congressionally passed law.

Congress better wake up to what just happened, and pass the CFR's into law, because obviously distilleries are just ONE sector that depends on the CFR's.

Are you taking this to the extreme under a lot of assumptions or stating as fact, considering this JUST came out?

As NJBILL states, it seems the corruption by lobbing firms, contractors, special interest groups and even the feds can currently assign/defer/contract third party agencies to write these guidelines....in their favor.

I think of the Bottle in Bond act, as what the intent is behind having Feds via the legislative branch go through the checks and balances, rather than some lobbing firm or back-channel entity. May not be a perfect analogy, but I assume you get the point.

Am I wrong....learning as we go here.

[a fan]

Well look at the rightie-spin. What the F happened to intellectual conservatives? How'd they get THIS stupid, THIS fast?

Which party and group is supposed to about LAW AND ORDER ????

They now believe that laws are "in the way". Unless, of course, the laws apply to the poor.....shoplifting, abortion access, etc.

Scalia was a fan of the Chevron ruling. In 8 years the adults in the Republican party have largely been shoved out the door.

And throw in the recent ruling essentially legalizing bribes? We're in for a bumpy road as consumers and citizens. But the elites will make bank as you say.

Its just....crazy what Trumpism has done to American Conservatives.

Who the F does the SCOTUS think wrote the Code of Federal Regulations? A bunch of bomb-throwing hippies?

Or a bunch of crewcut wearing white conservative Christian men? Gee, tough call.

Now they've twisted their world to where consumer protections are for lefties, and we should let corporations, who are more and more being owned by foreign interests....write the laws that govern them. Fox watching the henhouse.

Have to say, I'm concerned as to what this will do to small business in America. Without the CFR's and at least SOME protection from monopolies, anyone but corporations are vulnerable to these companies writing even MORE laws that favor the huge over the small.

And that doesn't scratch the surface.....think about rules surrounding pollution, or land and water use?

There is ZERO chance this ruling will end well for the average American. Zero.

[a fan]

It’s a bad decision.

Is it possible that there are occasional overreaches and misapplications of the law by the government agencies? Sure. But in those relatively rare instances, the courts or the Congress can step in and correct the mistake. The idea that this S Ct wants to disregard the expertise of scientists, financial experts, doctors, engineers, etc. is really bad for this country.

Do you want Clarence Thomas telling you what drugs are safe?

This invalidates the CFR's, folks. If you don't understand what that means, don't comment on this ruling. And read up on what just happened, and look at what the Code of Federal Regulations are. Apologies to Ms. Cox, but she's a moron when it comes to this issue.

Modern Republicans have convinced themselves that Federal rules and laws don't protect them or their families, and think that these things are "in the way". They're about to find out the hard way that this isn't true. Yet I promise you, they'll find a way to blame "the libs" for the gutting of the CFR's.

Just one example? I can now sell you Vodka that doesn't contain any alcohol in it, and simply not print it on my label. Why? Because the TTB regulations are what force me to disclose the alcohol content of my spirits, not Congress. It's a rule, not a Congressionally passed law.

Congress better wake up to what just happened, and pass the CFR's into law, because obviously distilleries are just ONE sector that depends on the CFR's.

Are you taking this to the extreme under a lot of assumptions or stating as fact, considering this JUST came out?

As NJBILL states, it seems the corruption by lobbing firms, contractors, special interest groups and even the feds can currently assign/defer/contract third party agencies to write these guidelines....in their favor.

I think of the Bottle in Bond act, as what the intent is behind having Feds via the legislative branch go through the checks and balances, rather than some lobbing firm or back-channel entity. May not be a perfect analogy, but I assume you get the point.

Am I wrong....learning as we go here.

Bottled in Bond was law. It's been replaced by the CFR's. Congress didn't write the laws governing spirits and beer and wine, Youth.

These are rules and regulations written by the governing departments over many, many years, Youth. Congress didn't write them, or pass them into law.

The Three Tier System? That's nowhere in law. It's a Regulation. And it just went POOF.

We can now sue the Federal Government to allow us ship direct to consumers, bypassing 100+ years of rules.

And I can assure you distillers will do just that.

[SCLaxAttack]

It’s a bad decision.

Is it possible that there are occasional overreaches and misapplications of the law by the government agencies? Sure. But in those relatively rare instances, the courts or the Congress can step in and correct the mistake. The idea that this S Ct wants to disregard the expertise of scientists, financial experts, doctors, engineers, etc. is really bad for this country.

Do you want Clarence Thomas telling you what drugs are safe?

This invalidates the CFR's, folks. If you don't understand what that means, don't comment on this ruling. And read up on what just happened, and look at what the Code of Federal Regulations are. Apologies to Ms. Cox, but she's a moron when it comes to this issue.

Modern Republicans have convinced themselves that Federal rules and laws don't protect them or their families, and think that these things are "in the way". They're about to find out the hard way that this isn't true. Yet I promise you, they'll find a way to blame "the libs" for the gutting of the CFR's.

Just one example? I can now sell you Vodka that doesn't contain any alcohol in it, and simply not print it on my label. Why? Because the TTB regulations are what force me to disclose the alcohol content of my spirits, not Congress. It's a rule, not a Congressionally passed law.

Congress better wake up to what just happened, and pass the CFR's into law, because obviously distilleries are just ONE sector that depends on the CFR's.

Are you taking this to the extreme under a lot of assumptions or stating as fact, considering this JUST came out?

As NJBILL states, it seems the corruption by lobbing firms, contractors, special interest groups and even the feds can currently assign/defer/contract third party agencies to write these guidelines....in their favor.

I think of the Bottle in Bond act, as what the intent is behind having Feds via the legislative branch go through the checks and balances, rather than some lobbing firm or back-channel entity. May not be a perfect analogy, but I assume you get the point.

Am I wrong....learning as we go here.

Bottled in Bond was law. It's been replaced by the CFR's. Congress didn't write the laws governing spirits and beer and wine, Youth.

These are rules and regulations written by the governing departments over many, many years, Youth. Congress didn't write them, or pass them into law.

The Three Tier System? That's nowhere in law. It's a Regulation. And it just went POOF.

We can now sue the Federal Government to allow us ship direct to consumers, bypassing 100+ years of rules.

And I can assure you distillers will do just that.

Don't agree with the ruling, but I'm sure as heck going to take advantage of it within areas I'm comfortable.

I trust you'll sell me alcohol when you're selling me alcohol. When do you open your direct-to-consumer web site?

[youthathletics]

It’s a bad decision.

Is it possible that there are occasional overreaches and misapplications of the law by the government agencies? Sure. But in those relatively rare instances, the courts or the Congress can step in and correct the mistake. The idea that this S Ct wants to disregard the expertise of scientists, financial experts, doctors, engineers, etc. is really bad for this country.

Do you want Clarence Thomas telling you what drugs are safe?

This invalidates the CFR's, folks. If you don't understand what that means, don't comment on this ruling. And read up on what just happened, and look at what the Code of Federal Regulations are. Apologies to Ms. Cox, but she's a moron when it comes to this issue.

Modern Republicans have convinced themselves that Federal rules and laws don't protect them or their families, and think that these things are "in the way". They're about to find out the hard way that this isn't true. Yet I promise you, they'll find a way to blame "the libs" for the gutting of the CFR's.

Just one example? I can now sell you Vodka that doesn't contain any alcohol in it, and simply not print it on my label. Why? Because the TTB regulations are what force me to disclose the alcohol content of my spirits, not Congress. It's a rule, not a Congressionally passed law.

Congress better wake up to what just happened, and pass the CFR's into law, because obviously distilleries are just ONE sector that depends on the CFR's.

Are you taking this to the extreme under a lot of assumptions or stating as fact, considering this JUST came out?

As NJBILL states, it seems the corruption by lobbing firms, contractors, special interest groups and even the feds can currently assign/defer/contract third party agencies to write these guidelines....in their favor.

I think of the Bottle in Bond act, as what the intent is behind having Feds via the legislative branch go through the checks and balances, rather than some lobbing firm or back-channel entity. May not be a perfect analogy, but I assume you get the point.

Am I wrong....learning as we go here.

Bottled in Bond was law. It's been replaced by the CFR's. Congress didn't write the laws governing spirits and beer and wine, Youth.

These are rules and regulations written by the governing departments over many, many years, Youth. Congress didn't write them, or pass them into law.

The Three Tier System? That's nowhere in law. It's a Regulation. And it just went POOF.

We can now sue the Federal Government to allow us ship direct to consumers, bypassing 100+ years of rules.

And I can assure you distillers will do just that.

Maybe we are talking past one another.

That is my point, Yes, BiB was law, and done by the Legislative Branch, and supported by distillers et al., which is what SCOTUS is saying needs to take place moving further....no?

I would assume that any and all current CFR's will remain grandfathered, and as we move forward they shall be required to follow the SOP of law generation.

[njbill]

I think the CFRs will continue, just that it will be a lot easier to get them overturned under this new ruling.

Ah, the reference to the CFRs brings a tear to my eye. In 1978 when I was a brand new lawyer, I got assigned to be my firm’s ERISA lawyer. The law was quite new at the time. Both DOL and the IRS were issuing ERISA regulations, notices, and like on a regular basis. I got the Federal Register every morning and had to check to see if there was anything new impacting ERISA. My recollection is that the IRS regulations and notices were pretty well written, but the Labor ones were a total piece of crap.

I had been assigned to become the firm’s ERISA lawyer because the prior ERISA lawyer had left to join the priesthood! Seems there was a message in there for me, but I never figured out what it was.

[a fan]

It’s a bad decision.

Is it possible that there are occasional overreaches and misapplications of the law by the government agencies? Sure. But in those relatively rare instances, the courts or the Congress can step in and correct the mistake. The idea that this S Ct wants to disregard the expertise of scientists, financial experts, doctors, engineers, etc. is really bad for this country.

Do you want Clarence Thomas telling you what drugs are safe?

This invalidates the CFR's, folks. If you don't understand what that means, don't comment on this ruling. And read up on what just happened, and look at what the Code of Federal Regulations are. Apologies to Ms. Cox, but she's a moron when it comes to this issue.

Modern Republicans have convinced themselves that Federal rules and laws don't protect them or their families, and think that these things are "in the way". They're about to find out the hard way that this isn't true. Yet I promise you, they'll find a way to blame "the libs" for the gutting of the CFR's.

Just one example? I can now sell you Vodka that doesn't contain any alcohol in it, and simply not print it on my label. Why? Because the TTB regulations are what force me to disclose the alcohol content of my spirits, not Congress. It's a rule, not a Congressionally passed law.

Congress better wake up to what just happened, and pass the CFR's into law, because obviously distilleries are just ONE sector that depends on the CFR's.

Are you taking this to the extreme under a lot of assumptions or stating as fact, considering this JUST came out?

Yep! They can always play games and do the "this is only for this one thing" narrow ruling game. And yep, I'm not a lawyer.

But I can tell you that the lawyers for distillery trade groups are looking at the ruling as I write this. So....there is reason for concern across every sector affected by CFR's. But if you believe the lady cited above? Bureaucrats can't pass rules that affect Americans....only Congress can do that.

We'll see, obviously.

As NJBILL states, it seems the corruption by lobbing firms, contractors, special interest groups and even the feds can currently assign/defer/contract third party agencies to write these guidelines....in their favor.

Sure. It's why we have things like mandates that you MUST use brand new char barrels for Bourbon and Rye Whiskey....to both the benefit of barrel makers (coopers), and to the benefit of the Scotch Whiskey industry who need these used barrels to make Scotch.

My issues with this ruling are manifold. Just a few"

1. picture how much more corrupt our regulations will be if every last rule for every tiny industry is written by our "on the take" Congress.

2. it invalidates the CFR's for any rule that isn't also a law passed by Congress.

3. it blows up the rules industry followed for decades....could throw entire sectors into chaos as laws are passed....ASSUMING you can get Congress to agree on the new rules governing industry. And these rules? Are updated every year in some sectors. Can you see Congress doing that?

...could all be overblown, you're 100% right. The ruling may ONLY apply to fish, for all I know. No one ever said our laws or SCOTUS rulings had to make a lick of sense.

I think of the Bottle in Bond act, as what the intent is behind having Feds via the legislative branch go through the checks and balances, rather than some lobbing firm or back-channel entity. May not be a perfect analogy, but I assume you get the point.

Am I wrong....learning as we go here.

That laws was the direct result of lobbying, my man. Turns out that distillers didn't like the wild west free market....and wanted the government to step in, and craft rules around label claims. I'm glad they did, obviously, and these regulations keep the lights on at my little shop. Pull away spirts laws that keep the big guys from doing the monopoly thing....and that's NOT good for me.

We'll see!

[a fan]

I think the CFRs will continue, just that it will be a lot easier to get them overturned under this new ruling.

That's what I meant....that they're now up for legal challenge.

And NJBill...you know what that means for Corporations, assuming they're not stupid. They're going to tell their lawyers to go after questionable/vague/whatever regulations that will have a big payoff if they can be removed.

So for my industry? The regulation that FORCES my distillery to use two parties to be between me an my customer? Wasn't passed by Congress, and isn't applied to all alcohol producers. So winemakers? There are top producers who never send their wares to stores. They are 100% shipping direct to members of their "wine club" via parcel. And that's it.

This is a HUGE advantage I don't enjoy. If you go to my website to order a bottle? CFR's FORCE me to ship that to a wholesaler, then to a liquor store, who then boxes and ships that order to a customer. But not before tripling the price of the bottle.

Sweet, right? So our trade groups are all over this ruling, for obvious reasons. Now a judge can look at this ridiculously unfair law, and let me (gasp) operate like every other business in America. Same goes for the silly excise tax laws, which force us to file taxes every two freaking weeks. Absurd.

That said? That's the upside. The downsides, from where I sit, are pretty limitless.......

Ah, the reference to the CFRs brings a tear to my eye. In 1978 when I was a brand new lawyer, I got assigned to be my firm’s ERISA lawyer. The law was quite new at the time. Both DOL and the IRS were issuing ERISA regulations, notices, and like on a regular basis. I got the Federal Register every morning and had to check to see if there was anything new impacting ERISA. My recollection is that the IRS regulations and notices were pretty well written, but the Labor ones were a total piece of crap.

I had been assigned to become the firm’s ERISA lawyer because the prior ERISA lawyer had left to join the priesthood! Seems there was a message in there for me, but I never figured out what it was.

TTB laws, especially surrounding labelling laws, are a complete mess....and the interpretation of said rules are notoriously inconsistent.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Other takes on the Chevron Doctrine ruling welcomed?

She communicates this rather well: https://x.com/HannahDCox/status/1806774421195300951
AP Story: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... 7e16669929

I don't think we will know how this decision -- here again reversing four decades of settled law by this most activist of Supreme Courts -- actually shakes out. The basic rule in Chevron was that the courts, faced with an ambiguous statute (and many, many of them are ambiguous) would defer to the reasonable interpretations to the agency charged with enforcement and administration under the legislative acts of Congress. It was a rule that limited the power of the unelected courts and deferred to the majoritarian branches. Where the administrator's action made such an interpretation, it was up to Congress to either acquiesce in the interpretation, or countermand it by legislation in the next session. Meanwhile, the court would not gainsay the expert opinion of the administrators. In this sense then, Chevron deference was "conservative," and deferential to the elected branches.

Over the last forty years, it should come as no surprise that Congress has written laws and gotten used to writing laws broadly...leaving the experts to administer the statutory authorization and make rules in the CFR. This decision appears to be another supposed effort of the Court to get the Congress to do a better, more explicit and more accountable job...at exactly a time when the Congress cannot do much more than pass the occasional budget to pay themselves.

Because of Congress's current paralysis, the countermanding of Chevron places, in a very real way, enormous power in the federal courts, the unelected, life-tenured, politically immune federal courts. If you are interested in the other way of looking at what the Court majority has done, listen to Justice Kagan:

“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.”

Of respect for precedent, the underpinnings of the common law, Kagan likewise minces no words:

"It barely tries to advance the usual factors this Court invokes for overruling precedent. Its justification comes down, in the end, to this: courts must have more say over regulation—over the provision of health care, the protection of the environment, the safety of consumer products, the efficacy of transportation systems, and so on. A longstanding precedent at the crux of administrative governance thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority. The majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power."

So, maybe you wanted to cripple "the administrative state." There are certainly horror stories that, standing alone, might well countenance or seem to warrant that result. But in the end, we are left with an impotent Congress, and a very, very powerful federal judiciary.

[youthathletics]

Thanks for the responses this far, appreciative.

I wonder how this plays in to the current debacle over the fast paced advancement in AI? Making sure we are driving with our foot on the gas pedal and keeping pressure on the brake pedal, as to not allow or avoid “Big Tech” getting us all too far out over our skis.