- Reaction score
- 15,305
- Points
- 1,280
That’s pretty much on par with Peter Zeihan though - he doesn’t usually lean towards any particular political party.
A Deeply Fractured US
- Thread starter BeyondTheNow
- Start date
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 28,902
- Points
- 1,160
Biden just kicked off his 2020 campaign 
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 753
- Points
- 1,160
Here is a link to the original telecast. In it Biden does says, " I beat him again in 2020." He then says, "By-the-way, We'll beat him again in 2024." The above video leaves out the second comment which does give a little added context.Biden just kicked off his 2020 campaign
Go to the 5:00 mark for the comments.
Defiant Biden insists he's 'staying in the race' ahead of ABC News interview
ABC's George Stephanopoulos' has the first post-debate TV sit-down with Biden.
abcnews.go.com
- Reaction score
- 15,305
- Points
- 1,280
That 2-year old article is pretty prescient
- Reaction score
- 15,305
- Points
- 1,280
How dare you put “facts” and “context” into a thread like this?Here is a link to the original telecast. In it Biden does says, " I beat him again in 2020." He then says, "By-the-way, We'll beat him again in 2024." The above video leaves out the second comment which does give a little added context.
Go to the 5:00 mark for the comments.
Defiant Biden insists he's 'staying in the race' ahead of ABC News interview
ABC's George Stephanopoulos' has the first post-debate TV sit-down with Biden.
- Reaction score
- 15,305
- Points
- 1,280
So, hidden behind the Trump/Biden election and immunity ruling are a few…um…interesting USSC rulings in the past week or two:
www.nrdc.org
www.vox.com
The Supreme Court Ends Chevron Deference—What Now?
For one, the ability of federal agencies like the EPA to set rules and enforce environmental protections now shrinks.
The Supreme Court’s new abortion decision, explained
The leaked decision is not a victory for abortion rights.
www.vox.com
- Reaction score
- 1,221
- Points
- 1,060
Seems crazy to run out either of these two choices. I feel like the replacement for either would be a slam dunk win
- Reaction score
- 1,453
- Points
- 1,260
Not expecting a Lou Gehrig type farewell speech from either one of them.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,591
- Points
- 1,040
Seems crazier not to "run out" ambiguities in law to the people who spend their lives sorting out ambiguities in law. Ordinarily I'd expect people not to side with the obviously self-serving executive branch position of "the stuff we write means what we say it means", but there's a contemporary epidemic of "Fox News fallacy" sweeping the internet commentariat whenever the "conservative" judges end up on one side.
Imagine that there should be a check in a nation founded on checks and balances.
Yup, I’ve been watching this… The Chevron decision is huge and will have many, many real life ramifications. It’s essentially taken an axe to decades of administrative law in the U.S. and has disempowered a multitude of agencies from interpreting and enforcing regulatory structures. Rather than regulatory legal matters going through specialized administrative bodies (as we have up here), many matters will now need to go to federal courts. Problem being, typically these tend to be narrow and technical matters where regulatory decision makers had technical expertise and where courts largely won’t have much of a clue of the nitty gritty. Think stuff like consumer safety, trade, securities, environmental protections… A whole lot of administrative tribunals are being turns on their end. This is gonna be a mess, and the courts are going to face a likely massive burden out of this.So, hidden behind the Trump/Biden election and immunity ruling are a few…um…interesting USSC rulings in the past week or two:
The Supreme Court Ends Chevron Deference—What Now?
For one, the ability of federal agencies like the EPA to set rules and enforce environmental protections now shrinks.
The Supreme Court’s new abortion decision, explained
The leaked decision is not a victory for abortion rights.
- Reaction score
- 15,305
- Points
- 1,280
Except that the checks/balances in this case aren’t folks who know the details of what they’re ruling on. Nor would it make sense for them to be taught on all of the details. Effectively this took out the SMEs being able to make decisions, which (in this group) is a bit ironic because I’m sure most of us at one point or another has been the SME and shook our head when a decision was taken that, to us, would be ridiculous.
Plus, as @brihard noted, this will make a ton of more work for the courts themselves so it’s a bit of an own goal.
kkwd
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 136
- Points
- 730
The Chevron Deference only came into effect when a citizen or entity of the United States challenged a regulation in court. In this case it was the fishing industry. They were required to have observers on boats and to pay for them out of their own funds. The regulating agency was given deference for a reason the Supreme Court decided they weren't entitled to have. Instead of getting a rubber stamp from the court for any actions brought against them they will have to justify their own actions. I don't see how this is a great burden on the courts, they are already handling many challenges. It doesn't take away the regulating agency's mandate to develop and implement new regulations. There seems to be a hair on fire reaction to the recent ruling that is not justified. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, I welcome it.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,591
- Points
- 1,040
I'm confident the courts already have people to whom a lot of basic leg work is delegated, and also confident they'd be able to call in SMEs as expert witnesses. If the justice system ends up over-stressed, the same solution applies as for all the other things people want the system to do more of - more money for more court time and the employees to make it happen.
Push enough people into corners or burden them with costs, and some of them are going to win in the courts. Some might win bigger than expected. If technocratic authoritarians want strong top-down government, they ought to police their own decisions and people more closely to avoid tangling with the courts and seeing some of that power they love to wield taken away. Some of the ridiculous decisions are theirs. Moving their burden of proof is a positive step for liberty and common sense. If they don't want to risk losing in court, they'll have to be more careful. They could always ask the legislative branch for brief clarifying amendments.
Yes, the recent case happened because an agency pushed the limits too far. Correction was needed. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has corrected via amputation. This is not going to be a small thing to adjust to.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,720
- Points
- 1,010
Actually, Brad, they cannot call on SME's as expert witnesses, nor is there basic leg work delegated. The only place expert witnesses are called is at the trial court level, and they are called by the parties -very, very rarely will the judge ask for a "court" expert to be appointed. After that, the courts of review (appeal courts, supreme court) can only go on the basis of the trial court record. And while the judges have other law students (they are usually students) acting as their clerks and research assistants to do research in law for them, the judges ultimately review all that work and make their own decisions.
I have had the pleasure of appearing before countless trial courts, numerous appeal courts and once in supreme court. Let me state that, 99% of judges, coming from law firms originally, and having law degrees and "letters" or "social sciences" BA's as first degrees, are total, complete scientific ignoramuses. I don't know how many times I've had to explain very basic concepts such as how compound interests works or "Square structures = weak, Triangle structures = strong" or "in Northern latitude, the sun, at noon on summer solstice is at an angle of your latitude plus 23 degrees - at winter solstice it's your latitude less 23 degrees, and you can calculate where it is for the rest of the year based on those two data points.
I have had the pleasure of appearing before countless trial courts, numerous appeal courts and once in supreme court. Let me state that, 99% of judges, coming from law firms originally, and having law degrees and "letters" or "social sciences" BA's as first degrees, are total, complete scientific ignoramuses. I don't know how many times I've had to explain very basic concepts such as how compound interests works or "Square structures = weak, Triangle structures = strong" or "in Northern latitude, the sun, at noon on summer solstice is at an angle of your latitude plus 23 degrees - at winter solstice it's your latitude less 23 degrees, and you can calculate where it is for the rest of the year based on those two data points.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,591
- Points
- 1,040
Who is "they"? If it's the case that the first level courts to which these administrative law matters are brought can't hear from anyone the two sides want to bring in and that judges there have no staff to whom to delegate, I stand corrected. "The courts" is "all of the courts", and includes the officers. Is it simply the case that the first level of a challenge in a US court on a matter of administrative law is just the judge, the lawyers, and a pile of books they have to work through by themselves?
I can guess that reviewing a prepared list of cases and precis of relevant legislation and rules provided by a flunky requires a lot less time than going through cases and legislation to do the preparation.
A shift in posture from "deference" to "respect" isn't a crisis. There are obviously ways for the government to explain itself or there would be nothing to which to defer, so the courts are still going to hear the government's position ("respect"). Regardless, the question of whether the agency had statutory authority to bill companies for the cost of monitors isn't exactly one that demands scientific acumen. Either it did, or didn't, or the answer was uncertain.
Some time ago, someone had a Bright Idea: "Hey, I think this provision may allow us to make the companies pay the cost of monitors."
Today, everyone who has used the privilege of "deference" responsibly: "Oh, f*ck. You assh*le."
Taking creative or ambiguous positions in front of courts always elevates the risk of a net loss - a sober version of "play stupid games; win stupid prizes".
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 12,243
- Points
- 1,160
Let me disagree with @Oldgateboatdriver a bit on this.
Firstly, I'll say that it is highly unusual for a judge to call a witness including expert witnesses but it is not unknown and the ability to do so comes from our common law roots where superior court judges are responsible for the judicial process in the case before them.
Hard to find a Canadian discourse on this but here's an American one that discusses the basics. There are even some American codes that expressly allow this.
In Canada there are a few SCC cases that touch on this, usually in the criminal context where the crown has failed to call an essential witness, such as the complainant. See, for example, R v Cook where the following is stated:
Cook discusses some of the pros and cons of why a specific counsel may decide to not call a given witness.
I would think that especially with expert witnesses (aka SMEs) courts would be very reluctant to call their own expert. This is because it can become an issue that the trial judge has abrogated the decision making process to "his" expert. But, I could conceivably see a case where the judge is left with the conclusion that both the dueling experts are so "bought" by their parties as to be virtually useless. What is more likely, however, is that the judge will look to the issue of whose burden of proof it was to establish the particular expert foundation for the case and hold that the requisite expert has not done so.
All that said, I'm not quite sure of the thrust of the rest of your discussion. There are officers to whom a judge can delegate some work - they're generally called masters or prothonotaries. The degree of delegation relates to many administrative matters but can include substantial decisions. Beyond that court staff is very limited to clerks who manage the files and some who can do research. They do not include experts. Courts are generally lean in the adversarial judicial system relying on the parties.
The big issue about the present USSC decision is exactly the fact that legislatures at all levels have set up administrative bodies with subject matter experts as hearing officers to divert cases from the courts so as to ease the load on both the court and the parties in conducting inquiries. Remember that in the case of administrative bodies, the legislature - acting for the people as a whole - have made laws that give the secretary of a given department the right to set up such agencies and to make regulations that govern them.
Full disclosure: I haven't read the Chevron decision myself. My Give-a-shit factor on what the USSC is doing these days has dropped to below zero. I couldn't tell you whether or not someone has really overstepped their delegated powers or not but when some judges use Originalism as the analytical basis for their decisions I tend to tune out and work on my model railroad. A pox on all their houses.
- Reaction score
- 1,453
- Points
- 1,260
The "debate" looked, to me, like an octogenarian verbal "bum fight".
To an extent. Biden looked like a lost old man. Trump performed far better but rambled on with falsehoods and such.
At the end of the day though, only one of them is being pressured to step away…
