Supreme Court DROPS THE HAMMER On Administrative State

(00:00.334)

All right, Supreme Court had, I’m not overstating this at all, had an absolutely fantastic, terrific, great week. Things that I’ve railed against for decades now, when it comes to government, the overreach of government, the regulatory state, the direction that we’re heading in, we’re giving to Heisman.

by the Supreme Court last week. I want to go through three cases in particular. Rebuke of the Chevron deference. Basically, what this is is that it was Loper Bright Enterprises versus Rayamundo Commerce Department. 6 -3 decision. It was a 40 year, it was called the Chevron Doctrine that told

Judges that you have to defer. You defer to the regulatory state vague laws that are reasonable. Now, regulators are going to have a much more difficult time bending laws to suit their own needs. And guess what? Congress might actually have to do their job and write laws rather than having

these agencies, these acronym agencies within the executive branch of government, right to themselves. I always think of the scene, you know, over the years, I’ve always brought up, always sub -referenced the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, where, you know, Indiana Jones is concerned. He brings back the Ark of the Covenant, and there he’s meeting with government people, and they’re telling him that they’ve got top men working on it right now.

He’s like, who? Top men. Yeah, that’s what government regulators are. Top men that are oftentimes career appointees have their ideological vents. They can’t be fired because they’re government employees. And you can see the problems here. Again, I’ve mentioned this before. This country is run based upon the regulatory code and the tax code.

(02:25.006)

And that’s where all of these politicians get their power from. And any way we can take that down, the better off we’re all going to be. Again here, we’ve got Chief Justice John Roberts. He explains that the doctrine lacked a constitutional basis. He says the deference to regulators became an impediment rather than an aid to accomplishing the basic judicial task.

The Supreme Court hasn’t invoked Chevron since 2016, but the lower courts have. Again, judges are like, I don’t feel like dealing with this. We’re just gonna defer to the regulators and they just rubber stamp whatever the hell they want to do. Justice Neil Gorsuch notes.

(03:24.046)

These anti -reliance harms aren’t distributed equally. While sophisticated entities and their lawyers may be able to keep up with the pace with rule changes affecting their rights and responsibilities, other may not. This is a tremendous point that we’ve brought up over the years. It’s called regulatory capture. Regulatory capture where big businesses and corporations, they have the lawyers, they have the experts, they can keep up with all the regulations and smaller entities cannot.

and they’re priced out of this, or they can find themselves put out of business by some overzealous regulator with a regulation that even though existed at some point in time. He says, he goes on, he says, Chevron has led us to a strange place. One where authorities long thought reserved for Article 3 are transferred to Article 2, where the scales of justice are tilted systematically in favor of the most powerful. Where legal demands can change with every election, even though the laws

Do not, damn straight. And where the people are left to guess about their legal rights and response abilities. And obviously the leftists who love big government, love the regulatory state, weren’t happy about this, Elena Kagan, we judges, we’re not experts in the field. We need our top men. We need our government regulators. No, we don’t. No, we don’t. We don’t need it.

Another example of it was another Supreme Court case. Again, this was Fisher versus US prosecutors where he actually had a January 6th rioter. I don’t know what was involved with this, but he was charged using Sarbanes -Oxley. Now, you’re not familiar with Sarbanes -Oxley. That was all financial regulations that dealt with the, after the dot -com collapse and Enron.

What in the world does January 6th, well, he said he might’ve shredded some documents and you’re not allowed to shred, you’re using financial crimes laws to go after somebody. Anyway, that one got the Heisman. Mark Joseph Stern here, again, this Biden administration, not happy, Biden administration not happy about the Supreme Court decision. This is their thought process.

(05:47.79)

Today’s ruling is a massive blow to the administrative state. Fantastic. Just start firing people, empty out those buildings, fire all these damn politically motivated regulators that can’t be fired that have been there forever. The collection of federal agencies that enforce laws involving the environment, food and drug safety, workers’ rights, education, civil liberties, energy policy, the list is nearly endless again.

Enforce laws? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

seek penalties for securities fraud. It violated what them going after him and again being judged jury and executioner violated the Seventh Amendment’s right to trial by jury. Again, I don’t even know the ins and outs of this case, but this guy is not wrong. It’s not wrong. And again, you can take a look.

you know, when the SCC actually does bring something up or these enforcement agencies do bring something up, they win every time!

They win every time. I liken it to, like I’m saying, what if, I’ll use my team, the Yankees. We wouldn’t like it, I wouldn’t like it, I’m a Yankee fan. I’m a Yankee fan, I wouldn’t like it. If the New York Yankees, all of the umpires for Yankee games were paid by the Yankee organization directly.

(07:46.478)

And again, don’t make any sense. And not to mention the fact that they’re also writing the rules. So again, very good. And last but not least, this was interesting. This is a win for. Federal 10th Amendment, the Constitution, they basically overrule lower courts that created a constitutional right for people to camp out wherever they want on the streets. And it had to do with it was it was.

cruel and unusual punishment by locking people up or removing them from the streets. I don’t understand how getting people off or acting on something and action is cruel and unusual punishment. But they actually quoted the mayor of San Francisco, this London breed, writing that the Ninth Circuit’s misapplication of the court’s Eighth Amendment precedents has undermined public safety and made it harder for cities to encourage the homeless to accept shelter.

Again, that’s London Breed. He’s quoting the mayor of San Francisco. Now, you know what? The ball is in your community’s courts. You’re in a city where you have a disaster going on. They can’t say, well, I can’t do anything about it. No, now you can do something about it. Again, states’ rights, communities’ rights, step in the right direction. A fantastic, I can’t overstate how big of a week it was. A great week for the Supreme Court. Watchdog on wallstreet .com.