11

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo: The Supreme Court Battle Against the Administrative State

Posted by freedomforall 9 months ago to Politics
14 comments | Share | Flag

Excerpt:
"The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case that could impact your individual liberty. And you probably haven’t heard about it.

The case began in November 2022, when Loper Bright Enterprises, a fishery based out of Cape May, New Jersey, appealed a district court opinion to the Supreme Court. The conflict between Loper Bright and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) started after the agency decided to require private fisheries like Loper Bright to pay their regulatory inspectors for their time observing fishery practices.

While the law doesn’t explicitly allow this practice, the Fishery Service cites the Chevron Deference, a precedent set by a 1984 Supreme Court case, which states that an ambiguous law can be interpreted by government agencies as they see fit. In short, the Fishery Service wants private companies to pay their salaries and found a legal loophole to justify it.

While this may seem like an isolated incident, it is just one example of a long history of government agencies infringing on individual liberty. The outcome of this case holds supreme importance for the future of our republic and the preservation of our financial and civil freedoms."
SOURCE URL: https://schiffgold.com/commentaries/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo-the-supreme-court-battle-against-the-administrative-state/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 months ago
    So fisheries have to pay for their own Tony the Wet Nurse! A forty year old student of mine is starting such a company such that preppers can inexpensively grow your own food (and fish!).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ splumb 8 months, 4 weeks ago
    In other words, the government is going to destroy another business, and said business has to pay for the executioner.
    I'd do an Ellis Wyatt first.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rainman0720 8 months, 4 weeks ago
    I don't see all that much difference between this and what the courts did to us (I hope you burn in Hell, Justice Roberts) with Obummercare. They forced us pay for something we might not have needed and damn sure didn't want. I agree that this is a huge case in principle, but so was the ACA, and SCOTUS stuck it to us on that one.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 months, 4 weeks ago
    Well, seems to me that if they are a "State" agency, the tax payers and private fisheries are already pay them.
    If they are not a state agency then they can't charge anyone unless their service was solicited, right?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Snezzy 8 months, 4 weeks ago
    Observe that the original case, in 1984, affirmed that the EPA was correct in not requiring an excruciating study of every little change that might be made to some factory.

    Sometimes, though, we want simply to wipe out DC, tossing the baby out with the bathwater, especially if we hold W. C. Fields' attitude towards small children. We should remember, though, the words of Will Rogers, who said, “Occasionally, an innocent man is elected to Congress.”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo