We'll just have unelected judges being able to twist ambiguous laws to fit the needs of their corporate donors, instead. Much better plan.

Yeah. It is. Give me an expert.

"Unelected." The new right-wing mantra. Well, guess what... the judges/justices are appointed. NOT elected.

@@froglevelfilmsPresumably the experts will state their cases in court, if there is an issue that must be decided. I’m better with two or more sides presenting their arguments than the power remaining in the hands of a bureaucrat, no matter who appointed them.

​@@michelez715 Some Judges are nominated by elected representatives and some are actually elected. It depends on the State. One-half of the States hold elections for State supreme court judges. Seventeen States out of the 32 which have intermediate appellate courts elect judges to these courts. Selection of judges for trial courts and courts of limited jurisdiction is effected through a variety of methods. Love it when Leftists are taking advantage of people's ignorance.

Nailed it

Except that those bureaucrats have never been truly unaccountable, have they ?

@@sophiaestella5611Of course not. They are perfect angels, immune to the siren song of unfettered power.

@@rustybarrel516 🤔🤔🤔😂😂😂😂😂😂🙄🙄🙄

safe and effective, amirite?

😂😂😂. They haven't done a good job. The CDC lied over and over. Now it gives back to people that was meant to.

You can be held liable for discussing medical opinions if you are not a physician, but you don’t have to have a degree in law to make opinions and discuss them.

Judges who have no expertise in a particular field have no business overruling the experts, turning these decisions into politics is ridiculous

@@markfeland2285 "experts" who happen to be paid political operatives and lobbyists.

It’s not about the law for these extremists, nor is it about upholding their oath, and that is blindingly clear to anyone looking on. Money and Power. One of the liberal judges pointed out that even they are not above the law. Would love to see the ones she was referring to get impeached

It also takes power from the epa....so corrupt judges (bought and paid for) can ok industries dumping toxins into our environment. So you are good with that? Just so you can get off on bump stocking? 🤮

It also takes power from the epa....so corrupt judges (bought and paid for) can ok industries dumping toxins into our environment. So you are good with that? Just so you can get off on bump stocking? 🤮

Repeal the 2nd amendment: The process for repealing or changing an Amendment is outlined in Article V of the Constitution, and basically requires at least 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to agree on the change, which must then be ratified (approved) by no less than 3/4 of all the states

It also sets legal precedent so that it SHOULD apply to all of the 400++ bureaucracies in the federal government.

@@wadestclair249 Our Rights don't come from man, and therefore cannot be taken by man. That's the whole point of having rights from our creator.

It's called brainwashing

Soo these guys^

That is quite true. One just has to look at Fox News to see the bastardization of the truth in real time.

Hear hear

It’s fux spews nonstop propaganda!

not so much Congress violating the law, they told that to the alphabet agencies in the executive branch. What they told Congress was in effect: "Do your damned jobs. The laws are YOUR responsibility to craft."

Are you kidding?? This is HORRIBLE!! This is what Project 2025 WANTS!! You people that think this is a good thing show you literally do not understand what this actually is!! This means ACTUAL EXPERTS are no longer able to weigh in and now it's Judges! We already see what the SCOTUS has been doing.. Now Congress cannot pass laws anymore and it's the SCOTUS!! We want clean water? Nope, SCOTUS tells us.. We want to make sure meat is supposed to be at this temperature, NO EXPERT, NO CONGRESS!! IT'S THE SUPREME COURT.... How TF is that good??

Not going to happen. There is a reason big business wanted Chevron dead, they know congress is too incompetent to even have stricter effects in stock trading.

Have you heard of the 2025 plan for America if Trump gets elected? America will be no more if this happens. Please help pass the word along.

@@LadyLeda2 Alito and Clarence will retire and he will be adding 2 more!!

Clarence Thomas has taken trips from his donors and even a house paid off for his mom. Judges even went to prison because they benefited from the decisions they made. This happened during the Kids for cash scandal. Judges were getting payments in exchange for sending kids to jail. Judges are not incorruptible.

Actually, you obviously haven't.

This guy is shilling for Big Gov: he wants to live on his knees.

@@dbrown7733I have. And MSNBC is wrong. Chevron should have been overturned a long time ago. I suggest you listen to the oral arguments before claiming someone else hasn’t done so. You can do so by going to SCOTUS site and listening to January arguments in Loper.

He's on one of the Fake News Networks - that's why he knows nothing.

No most of these agencies protect the land thats underneath your feet, and the water that goes in your children's mouth, The air we breathe! If you don't know what you're talking about you should probably go back to school. Because it seems like to me there's a lot of Americans that lack education!

No, experts are actual experts who are clear on the subject and can actually identify what ar paths that make sense. This is insane...when you start seeing lead in your water again please don't cry and say "I didn't know" or "why is this happening to me?" You are ok with insanity

Lobbyists are paid by people who can afford it… like chevron, 3M, big tobacco, gun manufacturers. Use your logic to figure out where that leads

@@neotheboxer6015 It's almost like... Congress can pass a law forbidding lead pipes. Wow amazing, problem solved.

​@@neotheboxer6015 😂 YOU SOUND " vAcCiNaTeD 🤪" 🤦 THE REPEALING OF LAWS IS THE OPPOSITE OF A POWER GRAB. MORE LAWS EQUAL LESS FREEDOM

@@donsims1941 Congratulations, this is the most braindead take i've seen on the internet today. YOU sound quite UNvaccinated and lacking of a high school diploma.

Except for the 14th amendment. SC didn’t like that one, so it gets blanked out

@@user-pb7ig4sv2l The SC did uphold the 14th. Your side created a phony interpretation of it just for Trump, and the SC ruled 9-0 that your interpretation was wrong.

@@user-pb7ig4sv2l When did they blank it out?

And they are destroying that can yall see it 😢

@@user-pb7ig4sv2l In what imaginary world did that happen?

Bet it was a farm that they didn’t want operating ?

@@knickyak7268 Yup, course they did the same thing to the Milwaukee river...think a sewer line over flow and that is what it smells and looks like.

I do.

@@diegooland1261Too bad!

Under this decision, it will be "some judge", rather than "some bureaucrat" calling the ditch a river. How will that be an improvement?

What did he lie about?

You mean checks and balances by field experts?

Aren’t judges unelected? So instead of unelected experts making unbiased decisions we have unelected non experts whose bias is most definitely questionable. 🤔

Who knows who he's talking about?

Congress passes laws not organizations within the government.

Spot on homie.

Have you heard about the 2025 plan that will go into place if Trump gets elected? The USA will be no more if this becomes law. Please help pass this along.

What you are asking for is going to overwhelm the court system. Judges are not experienced in things like food and drug safety. Its a waste of time to defer to a judge when you can just ask someone who works at the FDA.

We live in a constitutional republic that has strict rules on who and how laws are passed, chevron allowed the government use buerocrats in these agency to bypass those constitutional laws and pass laws that favored government that took away American freedoms, and make it harder for us to live, because congress would never pass such rules and many in those agency do not respect our constitution.

It isn’t.

id venture to guess that the swamp doesn't want any curbs on their power.

Because they are the experts in their field. What would a Supreme Court Justice know about water quality, or how to build a highway so the water doesn't pool on it or how to saw a wedge in a tree so it will fall exactly where you want it to or a million other things. They don't know. These are not bad things.

@@LadyLeda2 I see your point. We want the experts to do what they do best. But, this ruling doesn't throw out any conventional or established wisdom, such as how to build a road or manage a water treatment facility. What it does do, however, is require the experts, in any field, to submit to legislative oversight before changing their processes, making their processes public information so we can find out what they are doing. Both sides of the aisle have been crying out about a broken system, this is part of how we fix it. If it seems messy to you, don't forget that even life-saving surgery looks like murder 1/2 way through.

You mean like the Supreme Court? They also are unelected officials. The Ultimate Bureaucrats, who parse every word on a 250 year old piece of paper. And unlike almost all other government agency employees, they cannot be fired for cause.

Bureaucrats don't just interpret laws, they make them up on a whim. The U.S. Code of Laws are written on over 60,000 pages. After the original law is passed by congress, the unelected bureaucrats then "amend" (expand) those laws as they wish. Example: My career field was overseen by federal law starting in 1966. The law was described in about 55 pages. 58 years later, that federal law has been "amended" to now include over 400 pages. The expansion is based on lobbyists and interest groups promoted by media. These laws add cost to every sector of our society.

If would you rather have a nuclear physicist or a Federalist Society stooge making decisions on regulating nuclear power?

The Supreme Court Judges believe that only Judges are the Experts in Every Field of Knowledge... Medical, Scientific, Nuclear every thing!? How Foolish can you Be!!! 😢 VOTE BLUE 💙🗳️

@@jamesricker3997 How about the PhD. Federalist Society Member. How about the INVENTORS of Vaccines saying the CRAP is dangerous and the IGNORANT GOVERNMENNT Stooges say; NO WE want it the other way! YOU are the ignoramus stooge!

It's their specialty!

I have heard it before - on Radio Moscow during the Soviet totalitarian era.

No kidding! "Massive power grab" by SCOTUS? Try "undoing what has been an unchecked power grab by all the 3-letter agencies for DECADES", MSNBC! It's no wonder their audience is among the most ill-informed in the country. Every outlet, even those on the far left like TYT and Pakman, agreed that Biden lost the debate HARD. MSNBC's initial reaction? "Well BOTH appeared confused and weren't making any sense!" PUH-LEASE!!! Somehow, just like RvW, these people think that legal precedent is somehow the same as "established law". It's not! And - also like RvW - if it wasn't decided on such faulty grounds, it wouldn't have been so easily struck down.

How are they gas lighting anyone? They present facts and have a real argument. I don't want a judge who's not a PhD in nuclear physics make a final decision on nuclear safety regulations they have no idea about.

Truth is unrecognizable to those people that Love Lies!! VOTE BLUE 💙🗳️

Business owners cannot afford to go off what they feel. We have regulations as thick as dictionaries because business owners thought it was a good idea to go off what they feel is correct.

NOOOO!! It takes it away from Congress and to the SCOTUS ONLY!! The courts now say what temperature our meat should be, this town needs clean water, the Supreme Court takes it... Everything now dismisses Congress and Experts at the FDA, EPA, all goes to Supreme Court....

The congress will make the law but fools who carry out that law---civil serva ts, is not a matter of congress doing their job.

Exactly! Well said

If your government is corrupt It doesn't matter, they only enforce these laws on who they want and there are too many laws.

Well said

There is going to be a practical problem in having Congress actually do the job it should. Congress used to have employed advisory groups to help them with the difficulties of setting law when you don't understand the subject matter. Unfortunately Reagan hated technocrats and got rid of that expertise. So now we are faced with scenarios like MTG or Boebert deciding Atomic Energy Commission regulation. Anybody who thinks that sounds like a good idea should volunteer to swap home residence with families living near a nuclear reactor.

@@aa-hj2fd that is because the democrats are sold out to the communists and cartels. I call the. All commiecrats.

The law says “don’t pollute water”. The agencies enforce that law. They determine levels of pollution for industries to abide. That’s the chevron doctrine. Now the judge gets to rule what constitutes pollution. The judge just took away the power from the legislature. What’s so difficult to understand?

Why not write the levels into the law to begin with?

@@atirasrc they abused chevron so they lose it. sounds good to me

​@@jonWilk8156government will always overreach and abuse its power it's the nature of government and of people, government and those who work for their fellow citizens need to have strict limits placed on their authority, with harsh criminal penalties for abusing that power. Like those that continue to abuse Amos Miller in Lancaster Pennsylvania.

In the Chevron doctrine, federal judges would give deference to agencies in case of ambiguity in the specifics of a given law. In addition to this quite narrow scope of deference the agencies were actually given, their recommendations could be also countered by Congress, who could call into question the reasonableness of the agency determinations on a variety of grounds. The Chevron deference was put into effect with the understanding that federal judges and congressional legislators would not know the specifics in determining certain regulations, especially the specifics of safe amounts of substances (chemicals, minerals, etc.) when legislating environmental policies. These were things like safe levels of contaminants in ground water, in air emissions, in industrial waste disposal, in the use of chemicals in manufacturing, and more. Before Chevron, there were very few regulations on companies, especially in regard to public health and the environment. Smog-related deaths, industrial waste in rivers, and use of a variety of harmful pesticide chemicals were common and adversely affected the environment in the 1950s, 60s, and early 70s. This is the reason this latest ruling could bring us back to that era. And that's not a good thing. For these reasons, the Chevron doctrine should have been upheld, in my opinion.

AaAMEN!!! All we need to know.

Be scared, very scared if this project is passed. Your liberties will be taken from you. You will be under a dictatorship. It saddens me that we all will suffer because people like you didn’t educate yourselves.

Wait until that SCOTUS comes for YOU!

@@geoffreymartinez7208 If you are a government employee trying to interpret law, I hope they do. You have no right or authority to. The fact that you make such a comment demonstrates you are anti-democratic. You're literally complaining about government control being taken away.

Right?!!

no

Those judges are appointed. The Bar Association, has already stated that the majority of these judges, are not qualified for their positions. Case in point, Judge Cannon, in Florida.

When it comes to ANYTHING scientific, would you rather have subject matter experts or appointed judges or elected officials. Picture the House everywhere, all at once!

Those Unelected Bureaucrats are the Experts In Their Fields. They are the subject Mater Experts; The people most qualified to understand the ramifications of regulatory decisions in their area expertise. I do not want political entities making these decisions based on idealogical grounds rather than subject matter experts using scientific methods. Do you?

@@hassimirfenring4753 well stated!

@@hassimirfenring4753 Yes cause your so called experts do not know or care about upholding our rights.

Says those that watch fox and fox only.

@@atirasrc well, them and the constitutional scholars.

@@chrisloguethe dumbest scholars

​@@atirasrcYou're just parrots with no brains at this point.

​@atirasrc you're the only one talking about Fox...Fox is not conservative it's no better than CNN

Are you kidding?? This is HORRIBLE!! This is what Project 2025 WANTS!! You people that think this is a good thing show you literally do not understand what this actually is!! This means ACTUAL EXPERTS are no longer able to weigh in and now it's Judges! We already see what the SCOTUS has been doing.. Now Congress cannot pass laws anymore and it's the SCOTUS!! We want clean water? Nope, SCOTUS tells us.. We want to make sure meat is supposed to be at this temperature, NO EXPERT, NO CONGRESS!! IT'S THE SUPREME COURT.... How TF is that good??

Thank your 45th president.

It's obvious you do not understand or comprehend what's at stake.

@@user-wv4pw5bn7jIt’s not about finding out there’s led in your pant. Like sticking men in women’s dressing rooms and on their sports teams. Pfft

​@@user-wv4pw5bn7jsounds like they definitely do. This 100% weakens the over powerful regulatory agencies that typically have no one that it can tell them no. If you don't see a problem with an organization having total power without checks and balances, then I'm afraid you don't see the real problem .

This will ruin our country

Yes if it means more pollution across the board. Something to celebrate indeed

Yup, the corporations can now dump pollutions into our waters, more gases into the atmosphere, more poisons in our foods…all of which saves billions for the elite…what could go wrong…

You mean the congress that created the departments and agencies that have the experts working in and running them that are sanctioned and ordered by congressional order to not only study but keep records of as well as oversee the functions! Such as EPA for air and water, FDA for food supply, Energy for energy industry, FTC for banking, SEC for finance, USDA for farming, Department of the Interior for federal land and parks! So what additional laws are they supposed to write and who will oversee the implementation of them but most importantly where will the experts on the issues be housed?! You do realize that removing that rule gives judges the power to overturn what those agencies do if the judge so feels its NOT what they THINK it should be! Whether the judge is knowledgeable or not! An example would be calling your plumber and having them make a decision on the electrical wiring in your home when you need an electrician to identify and fix the problem and your insurance will NOT cover electrical work and decisions by a plumber nor an electrician making plumbing decisions and work!

@@stanleycarter303 Haha! You mean the experts in the US F&WS that spend thousands of dollars to build tunnels under sidewalks and roads for frogs? You mean the experts that find a common bait fish from the local bait and tackle shop in a stream and call it an endangered species and, waste 1000’s of acre feet of water to keep a seasonal stream wet year round just to have state whine they need more water out of the CO River? You mean the air pollution or ‘brown cloud’ the local natives warned about in the 1850’s when there were no cars, and these experts now demand we raise food crops to mix with gasoline to prevent the brown cloud? The same experts that ignore the byproduct of said ‘oxygenated’ fuel that creates formaldehyde in the atmosphere, all while ignoring the existing brown cloud that’s still there? The brown cloud that has ALWAYS been made of dust kicked up due to wind? You really need to get a grip on what you are willing to spend MY tax dollars on. I don’t care what you spend yours on. And yes, I hope the judges DO start overturning those *rules* created by unelected bureaucrats and not by Congress. The Constitution says only Congress can make law.

No. Federal agencies such as EPA, FDA, etc. have technical experts and scientists who create rules for technical agencies. Courts and judges can barely add 2 + 2 and are unfit, unqualified and could never understand these rules to save their lives. Are you with Heritage or ADF?

That's what the Chevron doctrine did. It gave them the ability to manipulate the ambiguities to favor government. When in reality, any ambiguity was suppose to go in favor of the people.

You mean the Congress that's been gerrymandered to favor Republicans, which gives the same number of senators to states with large and tiny populations, and the president that is elected by some stupid Electoral College which half the time gives the office to the guy with less votes? We ditched the Articles of Confederation because it put the letter of the law above common sense. Time to do the same with the 1789 Constitution.

Arbitrary and capricious.

Established law is passed by Congress.

Agencies do have the authority to write regulations, which are binding law. But your point is well taken.

No one is above the law, including corrupt government agency officials.

You didn't elect federal judges either, so it's a question of which set of unelected bureaucrats are better positioned to decide. In addition, the executive branch doesn't have people with lifetime appointments, so elections _can_ change the policies of those organisations.

Unelected government officials are "we the people". This is a scary power gab just as the headline suggests.

True 8 unelected judges are the people

@@undefined69695they are. Because the senate confirms and the senate is chosen by the people. Better that than some guy making a million dollars a month in an office deciding what the laws are because it’s good for their friend’s company.

Deregulation should bring prices down. The "save democracy " line won't work this time.

@@darrylbradleyrevisit history before the chevron doctrine. For profit industries continue to pollute the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. Without whatever little regulation there is, it will get worse

The solid rule of leftist projection? It's strait from rules for radicals...

Exactly. But Dems and the "broke" media don't want that.

It doesn’t turn back power to the people. It takes it away from our institutions and gives it all to corrupt scotus

The people made these laws. They should repeal them. This is legislation from the judiciary. Prohibited!

​@@wallacegrommet9343no its not

We’ll see. Meanwhile, keep your eyes open, there’s other stuff going on

For the left it's difficult to understand

@@bartwfielder when we are under a dictatorship and the rivers are plunges with dark goo from chemical drains then talk to me

The left simply are blocked by truth and always believe lies MSM mouthpieces of Devils

Agencies don't make laws. They enforce laws made by Congress. Agencies make rules to achieve the desired results of the laws.

@@justsayin8734 If a "rule" has the force of law, it's a law. To argue otherwise is to engage in semantics.

You would think so, right? Once the law is on the books the agencies take over. They can amend those laws as they see fit and that is what SCOTUS just shot down. The law that governed my field was created in 1966 and was 55 pages long. Today, that law has been amended so many times it is now over 400 pages long. Every law in the U.S. Code of Laws has experienced that same growth from unelected bureaucrats. It's a monster.

Other than the drivel that is coming out of your writing, are you naive enough to think that the ATF and other agencies don’t tweak definitions to suit their needs? Must be nice to live under whatever rock you are you’re living under.

I’m surprised to see how many Americans here don’t quite understand what “law” is. Congress writes “legislation,” which in fact is law. This much, from what I can see in comments, most people understand. But in order to execute those laws, agencies have the authority to write “regulations,” which cover all the minutia of enforcing the law that Congress makes. Both legislation and regulation make up our “law.” To test this, go and try violating a federal regulation written by an agency. I’m actually on the side of less regulation, because I agree with the sentiment that bureaucracy tends to overstep and act in its own interest rather than ours. So, I favor the court’s decision as well. I’m just helping out my fellow small-government advocates here who are not quite interpreting the issue correctly. Thanks!

@@kennethjames4724 With all due respect sir, you need a refresher (or an introduction) on this. First, you are not accurately interpreting what the court decided. There is no change to the agencies’ authority to write regulations (i.e. “laws). The court simply said that if there is ambiguity in the regulations which are written, and a dispute subsequently arises, you can take your grievance to court, whereas prior to the decision you only had one option: ask the agency itself to adjudicate. Second, you’re conflating a bunch of terms. Especially in a legal context, “law” means much more than just legislation passed by elected representatives. Good or bad, it is what it is. Congress cannot think up all the details of how their laws will be carried out on the ground. That’s why agencies write regulations, which are supposed to be limited in scope. Whether they do this appropriately is another topic that has nothing to do with the decision in this case. You use the term “amend,” to imply that agencies change what Congress passed. Not so. You’re referring to how agencies “revise” their regulations that they themselves wrote. Like it or not, they have the authority to do this. If you want constitutional justification (because I see you’re a constitutional expert), look to where it says the executive branch is responsible for seeing that the laws are executed. If you’re a business person, it’s like how your company has “procedures” written to spell out how the larger “policies” will be executed. Again, none of that is changing. Sorry to bring bad news. It’s just that now the agencies can ce challenged in court over their written regulations. I think we at least agree that’s a good thing.

@@boycottbigtech And we have the right to question the authority of these agencies to "write regulations" by using the Judicial Branch to decide whether or not said regulations are Constitutional. That's what has been done, and that's what the political Left despises. Just listen to that unhinged ideologue!

You need to explain what you mean because that was... meaningless.

Chevron was a horrible ruling and this was a great ruling. The original ruling allowed unelected agencies to regulated with little checks, balances, or democracy. This ruling actually moved power from unelected agencies to elected congress. This news broadcast is completely incorrect. This is a win for democracy.

VERY

Government gets elected and oversees outcomes of departments enacting policy they are directed to do. You pick the government. The extreme court is unelected, I have thought for a while if you vote for a guy who uses lawyers to save his 🫏, always, you will end up with the whole country in court, always.

@@user-pb7ig4sv2l If you vote for a party that puts uses a corrupt justice system to put their political enemies behind bars, you get the unmitigated disaster that we have now. I'm voting for the witch-hunt victim to get us out this disastrous mess. You can stay on the wrong side of history.

He He He

She’s being unbiased

Amy Coney Barrett voted against the J6 hearing. Sounds like this is how the court should work.

​@@coffeedad31why do you people go out of your way to attack the black woman?

Got many people dumbfounded. I have seen Circuit judges change their position on a ruled issued to come to agree or disagree with the majority. Maybe when she realizes, she'll do that.

so conservative talking points blah blah blah

So you want the Supreme Court setting clean water standards or safe food and drug standards ? They cannot even get the Constitution straight.

But, you’re okay with ordinary citizens working the laws that we are abiding by in states right now? They are getting judges and governors to pass legislation. Are you not paying attention?

Thought the extreme court just did that. The 7 headed emperor of the USA

The Evocative Branch operates within its scope of powers. Do you really want to do down this road?

It’s worse than that. It’s Congress abdicating its power to burecrats in order to avoid the repercussions of doing things that are facially unconstitutional, and that they couldn’t pass through Congress. Then looking the other way after colluding with the executive branch to do those unconstitutional things.

@@TooManyChoices1 You need to give some examples of this assertion because your diatribe makes no sense. In any functioning democracy, agencies (run by "beaurocrats") must interpret what is usually a vaguely written law and develop regulations in the daily minutiae to make the laws work. If an agency ever goes unconstitutional things then that can legitimately be brought to the state or federal Supreme Courts.

​@@user-xx4nm3mz4pYes. I want the president to have less power. The president/executive branch has had far too much power. The purpose of having three branches is for checks and balances. For far too long, that power has been concentrated in the executive branch. Congress has had its power stripped away. It is about time the supreme court balances the power by sending it back to congress.

Do u think our current US House is capable of writting responsible environmental protections?

Duh. These ppl don't think.

So according to your theory, if a certain pesticide is applied to a specific food, Marjorie Taylor Greene (with a Masters on Chemistry from Trump University) can increase that percentage with a slam of the gavel huh ?!?! Never mind restrictions for a healthy body.. She decides, we eat.. No Science !! Ahhhh ignorance..

Wait does this also affect think tanks as well?

@@donaldbuth1127?

You don't understand this issue at all.

Sounds illegal?

Exactly...!!

You are a product of our failed education

Oh give me a break. This is ridiculous!!! The American people don't want that!!! We want more regulations. Regulations help us. Are you serious?? Who convinced you this was a good thing? SMH

@@vanessanassif I think that the ones who have managed to convince them that this is good are the same ones that are going to benefit from it: oligarchs and major corporations, praying for fewer and fewer regulations and less and less oversight. They have the money, the power, the ressources and the bribed spokespersons to do that just fine.

@@vanessanassif the constitution convinced me. There is an incestuous relationship between the bureaucrats in these agencies and the industries they regulate.

There is almost zero "journalism " that is backed by any conglomerate like the networks.

That is exactly what the ATF and others have been doing.

MSNBC, they swore Joe Biden was sharp and at his best. They lie. FJB anyway.

No. Federal agencies such as EPA, FDA, etc. have technical experts and scientists who create rules for technical agencies. Courts and judges can barely add 2 + 2 and are unfit, unqualified and could never understand these rules to save their lives. Are you with Heritage or ADF?

​@@cecilelaforce3686All legislative powers belong to Congress.

@@cecilelaforce3686you obviously missed Civics 101 in high school! When you have illegitimate agencies creating laws under the deguise of rules that is not a representative republic that is mobocracy!

The government should only be accountable to the government. That is the Democrat way.

replace "bureaucrats' with "expertise" and the answer is obvious as you framed the issue disingenuously.

@@rjlchristie It's literally 100% opposite of that. You people live in bizarro world.

how are they supposed to administer the law day to day without interpreting what it says? there is not a federal judge at every agency every day interpreting law for them on a case by case basis.

@@MikeC2K10 It's not their constitutional position to "interpret" the law. Their job is to abide by the law. What don't you get about that?

The left was counting on circumventing that inconvenient document, the Constitution, for eternity, as evidenced by how triggered the left-leaning news agencies are fuming over and coming up with doomsday titles (see above title from the great news source, MSNBC as but one example).

So I guess precedent doesn't matter nor the original ruling. Also the constitution is incredibly vague on the power of judicial review, a power the Supreme court gave itself.

@@ricardobarahona3939 It's precedent until it's not. There was 200 years of precedent before Chevron.

@@celan4288 Definitely not 200, the constitution was not ratified (based on 1984 ruling). Not to mention the post new deal complexity of government is nothing compared to a much less complex government for a new country.

@@celan4288 Also to break precedent you need a very good reason, and the reasoning in this case was terrible.

Slavery was also implemented by a majority in that part of the country. Democracy at work. (We are a Republic btw for a reason - which is why slavery isn’t legal any longer.)

Chevron was BIAS right from the start. Totally Unconstitutional and Illegal

Totalitarians

Only a left wing hack pretending to be a journalist.

That is such ignorant logic you are using.

​@@user-lc7pk6zx7xI would say it is just a Russian bot, but they program them to use correct English and grammar.

⁠@@user-lc7pk6zx7xnot quite. You communists don’t do things that are good for the people. Anything that you communists hate is obviously great for the people.

What a stupid comment

And in that comment, proves the very danger of biased ignorant people.

Agreed.

You mean the field experts who say “no (insert corporation) you can NOT dump toxic waste into the rivers”?

@@romac4607that’s already illegal. These agencies can’t just make up laws anymore. They can enforce laws that congress passes. I didn’t really think it was that difficult to understand, but so many comments such as yours are proving me wrong

@@romac4607 LOL, no we mean the ones who go to media outlets(both social and msm) and "instruct" them to censor free speech because it doesn't align with the lie they are pushing at the time. The ones who make a policy and enforce it by showing up at your door and demanding you comply(the atf), the ones who will have you fired from many different jobs just because you don't want to be a guinea pig for a new RNA treatment. ...shall I go on?

I guess UPS, IRS and DMV can go away who needs things shipped to them, drive/lisince or a tax refund big government apparently. Good luck doing anything in general.

This is only divisive if you want judges to be the only ones to decide about regulations for safety and whatnot. It's only divisive if you think over turning a 2nd long-standing precedent in 2 years is fine. You must be on Trump and project 2025 side cuz this is the stuff of Russian dictatorships. But I bet you think you're a patriot right. FoH!

They are definitely one of the biggest PUKE news groups around these days, just like other garbage organizations > CNN, THE GUARDIAN, SLATE, ROLLING STONE etc.

Yes but you sound crazy vilant black man

People without degrees in political science need to shut up!! A constitutional republic is a form of democracy! We have democracy you troglodyte.

A republic means that the power in government should come from the people. That changed when corporations started buying elections by making multimillion dollar contributions to campaign Corporations are not people. Elected officials make decisions based on what's best for the corporations 90% of the time.

You mean the Tyranny of the Minority.

I know you don't quite get it. That's democratic republic. Look it up.

@@DavidMiller-dt8mx Democracy was purposely LEFT OUT of Our Constitution because it is subject to Mob Mentality. Our Constitution tells US what RIGHTS We have INDIVIDUALLY. “I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America 🇺🇸 And to The REPUBLIC for which it Stands, One Nation Under God. Indivisible. With Liberty and Justice for ALL”

Bingo!

That's right. (And the Founding Fathers)

Won’t be thanking them for very long. Haven’t watched Erin Brokovich or read The Silent Spring by Rachel Carson have you?

@lilblackduc7312 Yeah, the Founding Fathers didn't foresee the detrimental effects of 20th-century industrialization on the environment. That's why federal agencies for clean air and water were created in the first place, in the 1970s. The environment was very bad in the late 1960s, and this was because there were no regulations on the cleanliness of water or industrial waste. The agencies aren't "out of control" with power either, there's relatively low money in doing research for creating regulations to protect the environment. Corporations wanted this ruling to happen. They stand to make a lot more money and harm the environment and the quality of life in America more than the agencies ever will. Smog events killed over 170 people in New York City in 1953 and 1966, and the Cuyahoga River was literally on fire in the late 1960s. Industry was responsible for this.

@@Motionedout Good job! Those of us who study history are doomed to watch those around us...repeat it. (You owe it to yourself to watch the documentary, "Plagues & Pleasures on the Salton Sea" KQED ;-)

@mati261000 of course there need to be regulations and unelected regulators to enforce enforce the regulations, which police do all the time, so do food inspectors, fire departments, building regulators

@@jaaksavat7916 We all know that these "regulators" go far beyond what the laws allow, and instead, bureaucrats who are really nothing more than political activists, act like mini dictators by imposing on us whatever THEY think is best for us, regardless of what the law says or what Congress intended.

So the supreme court knows micro biology and cloning techniques to fight a virus? I'm impressed by their scope of knowledge.

@@diegooland1261 I keep seeing arguments like this throughout the comments section, but that begs the question, how did the US ever survive for 200 of it's 250 years without these experts making industry-specific changes, interpretations, and executing it in their knowledgeable ways? Part of me thinks it's good for experts to be able to operate the way they have been the last 50 years, but another part of me thinks it's better this happened because they seem to often go way outside of their authority, take bribes from special interests, and create unnecessary red tape, which results in less liberty for the people in general. I haven't read the case but based on the comments, I'm convinced there are pros and cons to both sides, but I'm leaning towards there is more good to come out of this decision than bad.

@@diegooland1261 The court is not imposing anything or making up its own laws. The court is only saying that these federal agencies don't have the power to do whatever they want, because only Congress has legislative power. I thought you Democrats were against dictatorship? You want unelected bureaucrats making up their own laws? When did the US turn into the old Soviet Union?

But they are not incentivised to pollute and destroy the planet

@@atirasrcumm yes they are. Most of the time they retire from government after 20 years and then go right to the companies they were regulating and get fat checks to be on their board. We see it a lot with the FDA. Like you can’t be that naive. The agencies need to be held accountable by all 3 branches. They need to broken into branches that are under the jurisdiction of all 3 branches. If that’s the case then each department can help the other department be more efficient. The legislature branch can listen to the judicial branch on how to write an effective law and to the executive branch on what are the common violations and concerns they see in the field, then the judiciary can be better informed when interpreting the law and the intent behind the laws when they were written. These agencies shouldn’t be able to subvert our checks and balances. Even if it is for a good intention. We have a duty to figure out how to do it while maintaining the checks and balances.

(facepalm) At least they are the experts.

@@forfun6273 that is true of legislators at all levels of government. Do some research. The most lucrative revolving door is between congress, senate folks and lobbies. And no judiciary do not have expertise. Gorsuch referred to laughing gas and had to issue a correction to his ruling proving that point.

These "unelected experts" are the only ones doing the specifics of the relatively low-paid work of making sure the land, air, and water are not soaked with industrial chemicals and other contaminants. Make no mistake, industrial corporations wanted this ruling. They will be the ones telling Congress what to do, how to legislate. And it won't be in the interest of a clean environment or public safety. People here seem to have the wrong idea about government agencies. They aren't cartoonish bureaucrats out to ruin your life, if they are, there's very little money in doing it. The people who stand to do that most are the people who will profit. The government is there to keep those companies in check through regulations.

Cool then don’t wear your seat belt!

@@Monsterdrumma How many boosters have they convinced you to take by now?

​​@@Monsterdrummarelax satan. @chrisfuller2069 And you..... Since you clearly dont believe in science, why dont you give up literally everything you own, move to an island and live like a cave man, since everything you use and own was made possible by science.

@@chrisfuller2069you’ll die by quote on quote freedom

@@EvelynHayes97 It's quote, unquote, you clearly highly educated person. I'm curious what you think "quote on quote" means. 🤣

i don't think it'll last, but we'll see.

Exactly 👏🏼

I don’t trust this congress at all, especially the MAGA element. They’re all about power, forget that they can’t govern…

100% correct!

Because it is facist the way they treat rfkjr is proof in the puddn

They received their marching orders

The only people or corporations against more power to those "three-letter-agencies" are those who want to ruin your well being or reduce your life expectancy. .

So now it is worse with less skilled people in place so that is better how?

@@Monsterdrumma - "So now it is worse with less skilled people in place so that is better how?" -- It's not less skilled people in place. It's people not at all in place because they neither needed to be in place and it was a stretch of a department ever insisting they were needed. Why should fishermen have to pay to have a bureaucrat on their boats just because some at the agency wanted to find a way to increase their number of employees and to bring in more revenues from fishermen and also be able to ask for more taxpayer dollars when they put in their next budget request? Having the bureaucrats on their ships would only increase the fisherman's costs which wold have increased the cost they have to charge wholesalers who would then charge retailers more and cost the public more ... further driving up Bidenflation. And for what benefit to the public, to the people, to the taxpayers, to the retailers, to the wholesalers, to the fishermen? Absolutely none. Who would have benefited from it? Useless, worthless, un-elected bureaucrats and the agencies they work for.

​​@@pebblehilllane I'm sure retail costs will plummet now that there will be less regulations on fish. If it's not processed in a filthy plant, using contaminated water, with people worked to the bone with no rights or regulations to protect us. I like it. I'm sure the price of goods will skyrocket just because they can. But I'm going to be looking for that cheaper fish by next week I'll amend my response if my retail gets cheaper.😢

@@user-rusane71m80m - "I'm sure retail costs will plummet now that there will be less regulations on fish. If it's not processed in a filthy plant, using contaminated water" --- I never said anything about fish prices plummeting and absolutely nothing whatsoever about the processing of fish or dirty or contaminated water or any of the other things you replied with. It will help smaller fishing operation remain in business and it will keep costs from rising higher. It's been estimated it would cost each fishing boat $710.00 per day to keep a useless bureaucrat aboard. Some fishermen are at sea for two three weeks or more, depending on the size of the ship and what they are fishing for. Three weeks at sea times $710.00 to pay for a bureaucrat that isn't needed would cost $14,910.00 per trip per ship. Do you honestly believe that doesn't either lower the profitability of some fishermen that they could not remain in business or cause an increase in the price of fish? As much as Bidenflation has driven up the cost of food, fish included, the additional $14,910 per trip adds to the price of fish at every level even if the fishermen only pass on half the cost and eat the rest of the cost. It's a needless money grab and massive overreach of governmental agency powers due to vague enough laws and allowing regulatory agencies the right to basically rewrite the laws that apply to their agency and then enforce them and call them actual law. That and it increases the number of employees of the agencies, and their yearly income would not be covered by the $710.00 per day so that means more un-elected unneeded bureaucrats for the taxpayers to pay the salaries of and the benefits of and pay their retirement. It's all part of the Commiecrat's basic philosophy of governance. Tax and spend, increase regulations that bring in more money, grow the size of the government as much as possible, make as many laws and regulations as possible federal laws and regulations, which all are the exact opposite of what The Founding Fathers of the nation intended or wanted.

Those agencies have saved lives - but hey, there are costs for that sort of nonsense, right?

They have killed and destroyed far more lives.​@@DavidMiller-dt8mx

@@DavidMiller-dt8mx Those agencies are out of control. Juice is not worth the squeeze

Are you sure your supply of drinking water is clean?

@@g.strauss1813 Yes, I am on well. Old trope. If these agencies stayed in their lane it wouldn't be an issue. The cost or us regulations (per George Mason University Mercatus Center) was 4T dollars ... in 2012. To put that in perspective, $4T is greater than every country in the world except the US/China/Japan. $4 trillion ... in 2012. If we cut 90% of the regulations and people in those agencies we would all be better off.

No it's not, you don't understand.

@@PaulBrown-uj5le You like the gov being able to make up the rules as they go without passing laws? Because that's what this ends.

EXACTLY.

Sure, 'power to the people'...which people? The 1% that's always ruled this country. We think that crowd and their lawyers should have even more power! This can't possibly have any negative repercussions. Yay, America! Lol @those nerds who actually went to school for STEM, wanting to have their 'years of expertise' listened to kek. Who needs science? Brawndo has what plants crave!

Left wing activists think everyone else is political, but not themselves.

So you prefer Trump firing all in every agency who do not pledge allegience to him and replace them with far-righties?

@@RayThackeray You mean replace them with constitutionalists?

Let's hope your chicken doesn't have salmonella as we wait for Congress to decide what level of salmonella is acceptable while Republicans fight so the corporations (Republican donors) don't lose money.

@@WriterRachel So you do want bureaucrats to override Congress and make up their own laws. You have just given us a never ending excuse by which bureaucrats should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they claim to be protecting us.