Remember the Wendy's "Where's The Beef?" commercials?
Here it is. Right Here.
Senator Mike Lee says he's read a lot of Trump SCOTUS nominee Gorsuch decisions.
And that Gorsuch has a problem with Chevron deference.
Chevron Deference Explained
deference is a principle of administrative law requiring courts to
defer to interpretations of statutes made by those government agencies
charged with enforcing them, unless such interpretations are
unreasonable. The principle is named for the 1984 Supreme Court case
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which
involved a dispute over the Environmental Protection Agency’s
interpretation of a provision of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
Under Chevron, even if a court finds that another interpretation is
reasonable, or even better than the agency’s interpretation, it must
defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation.
in part turns on whether the statute unambiguously addresses the issue.
If it does, then the unambiguous meaning controls. If the statute is
ambiguous, then the court asks whether the agency’s interpretation of
the ambiguous provision is based on a permissible construction of the
statute. A permissible construction is one that is not “arbitrary,
capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” In other words, it
is a very low threshold of deference.
It's more than just the Democrats screaming like Chicken Little because they want to destroy Trump.
Chevron Deference allows faceless, Un-elected, Career Bureaucrats to simply write Regulations - just One Person - which over ride Federal Law.
Can you even imagine what the decisions of Judge Gorsuch, and possibly 2 or even 3 more like him, will actually Clean Up from the Supreme Court on down through every Court in America?
Kill Chevron Deference and you kill the liberal/Statist/Socialist Agenda imposing itself through the Courts despite the outcome of Elections.
Chuck Schumer Proves Why We Need Neil Gorsuch
Via Washington Examiner:
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., last Wednesday dragged out his feeble effort to block Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. Ahead of today’s confirmation hearing, he trotted out three people, representing supposed “victims” of Gorsuch’s jurisprudence. He hoped to demonstrate that Gorsuch is hostile toward workers and cancer patients, and takes the side of “the powerful” and corporations against the “powerless” little guy.
Never mind that in all three cases, one of which was decided unanimously by a three judge panel that included one of former President Bill Clinton’s appointees, Gorsuch scrupulously applied the text of the laws as written by the Congress in which Schumer serves. Schumer just didn’t like the outcomes or, to be more precise, he hopes the outcomes might be sufficiently tear-jerking that they can inflict damage on the judge’s chances of confirmation. He feels pressure from his party’s left wing to make a show of resistance against Gorsuch’s nomination, which seems likely to be smooth sailing.
Politico Hit Piece On Judge Gorsuch: All Smoke, Not Even A Single Mirror
Overplayed their hand.
Via Red State:
Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings begin today, and the Democrat case against him is laid out in a POLITICO piece titled 5 pieces of Gorsuch’s record that Democrats will attack
It’s an attack that not only falls flat, but increases my admiration for the judge.
Complaint #1 is that he ruled in favor of religious freedom. That’s a non-starter as an attack. He’d have a problem if he ruled against it. Next?
Complaint #2 is that, while a lawyer at the Bush Justice Department, he supported the Bush administration’s priorities. Um, that’s what lawyers do. Next?
Complaint #3 is that Judge Gorsuch told people he found it “disheartening” and “demoralizing” to see President Trump attack the judiciary over his executive order on immigration. I couldn’t be more pleased about this. Democrats are indeed going to make much of this. They’re going to quote his comments and force him to own those comments publicly, in front of the cameras.
I believe he’ll find a way to do that in a forthright manner that sounds reasonable. But in any event, he’ right. Next?
Complaint #4 is supposedly about “worker’s rights” but in reality is the sort of nonsense Democrats always engage in. Judge Gorsuch ruled properly in a couple of cases with sympathetic
To Democrats, if someone is sympathetic, it shouldn’t matter what the law says; you just make sure you rule for them because of the feelz. For example