11–20 of 1001 posts
What is the significance of this
Huge and positive in the direction of lawmakers making law, not regulatory bodies that are unelected. Similarly in favor of trials by jury and not by regulatory administrative courts. A huge win for democracy and freedom that both major US parties and all citizens should celebrate.
I'm the person who prefers having regulatory bodies handle matters over a dysfunctional and ignorant congress who is political about everything.
What is the significance of this
Corporations will run roughshod over regulators and everyday citizens' lives will be measurably worse as a consequence.
(edited, originally mistakenly wrote "regulators" can still make laws, which is exactly the wrong thing)
This court continues to make decisions that might be defensible if you were making them for the first time, but go against decades of precedent in which time many laws have been written on the assumption that things would work a certain way. For a group that claims to be holding to tradition they sure are willing to throw things into chaos.
Sometimes bad precedents need to be overturned when decades of evidence have accumulated that it was a mistake, and this is one 100% of people should be happy about. There have been other poorly decided precedents in the past that were later overturned, for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
This court continues to make decisions that might be defensible if you were making them for the first time, but go against decades of precedent in which time many laws have been written on the assumption that things would work a certain way. For a group that claims to be holding to tradition they sure are willing to throw things into chaos.
Sometimes bad precedents need to be overturned when decades of evidence have accumulated that it was a mistake, and this is one 100% of people should be happy about. There have been other poorly decided precedents in the past that were later overturned, for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
Would you care to share this evidence?
What is the significance of this
FDA can't shut down the factory. It has to take it to court.
A Judge with a JD or a jury of random people will decide if the factory can stay open.
Factory stays open.
Millions of people eat salmonella contaminated food.
This court continues to make decisions that might be defensible if you were making them for the first time, but go against decades of precedent in which time many laws have been written on the assumption that things would work a certain way. For a group that claims to be holding to tradition they sure are willing to throw things into chaos.
Sometimes bad precedents need to be overturned when decades of evidence have accumulated that it was a mistake, and this is one 100% of people should be happy about. There have been other poorly decided precedents in the past that were later overturned, for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
Enabling corruption seems to be the primary agenda of this court these days.
What is the significance of this
FDA finds food factory to be non compliant with food safety standards. FDA can't shut down the factory. It has to take it to court. A Judge with a JD or a jury of random people will decide if the factory can stay open. Factory stays open. Millions of people eat salmonella contaminated food.
What is the significance of this
Huge and positive in the direction of lawmakers making law, not regulatory bodies that are unelected. Similarly in favor of trials by jury and not by regulatory administrative courts. A huge win for democracy and freedom that both major US parties and all citizens should celebrate.