I try to limit putting out articles before their time. By this I mean articles that talk of what may take place rather than what has taken place.
However, this is one SCOTUS case in which the “correct” decision will have a broad-reaching positive impact across many aspects of We the People vs. Big Government. And, likewise, the “incorrect” decision will mean bigger government and more abuse for We the People.
This from thepatriotjournal.com.
The Supreme Court has played a critical role in recent years scaling back The Regime’s agenda. They have upended far-left gun control laws, overruled The Regime’s student loan plan, and even ended Roe v. Wade.
This new case has been brought before the court, regarding one of The Regime’s many heavy-handed agencies.
This particular agency has been gouging fishermen with massive fees and putting a dent on working Americans’ wages. The court has heard arguments and the conservative majority has let its opinion be known.
From Fox News:
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority in Wednesday’s arguments appeared ready to reel in a legal precedent challenged by a group of fishermen who say the decades-old doctrine gave the administrative state too much power over their business.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh appeared the most skeptical of the Justice Department’s counterarguments to let Chevron stand, with Gorsuch at one point questioning Chevron’s ‘disparate impact’ on classes of people who have ‘no power to influence agencies.’
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has charged fishermen up North $700 a day for an “at-sea-monitor.” The hefty fee is allowed to stand, due to a precedent known as the Chevron doctrine.
This rule suggests that the courts should defer to an agency when a federal regulation is challenged.
This appears to give federal agencies greater power over
Americans and deprive the courts of siding with citizens.
But it seems as if the Supreme Court’s conservative justices are not fans of Chevron, which can be seen as a form of big government crushing working Americans.
Clarence Thomas questioned the doctrine, asking:
How much deference is too much?
Other conservative justices did not seem convinced by the DOJ’s counterarguments, pointing out that the Chevron doctrine could have a “disparate impact” on groups who have “no power to influence agencies.”
That seems to suggest that some justices believe the Chevron doctrine robs Americans of having a say in their own country.
If the court overturns this precedent,
it could be a massive win for Americans.
It could prevent federal agencies from passing sweeping rules that bleed companies dry. It might also put hard limits on agency fees and fines, which many call “stealth taxes” on businesses big and small.
God speed to Conservatism.
