ATF shaking in its boots, lol.
"The rules that federal agencies make" = the CFRs.
Is that trending again? It trended a bit about 10 years ago... Also, that's quite suspicious that it's showing up in your recommendations on YouTube. That probably says something about what content you've been consuming.Reminds me of the "sovereign citizen" videos I've been seeing on YouTube lately. People give elaborate explanations for why they aren't bound by the laws of whatever country they happen to be in. Results in some really entertaining confrontations with traffic cops.
Hmm, I wonder how that would go over with the FAA?
I thought they did overturn the Chevron doctrine in the West Virginia versus EPA case?
The bureaucracy seems to feel that was one of the "narrow" rulings and largely ignoring it.
I do occasionally watch videos about law-enforcement encounters with wackos. Then it gets to be too much and I start marking specific channels as "Do not recommend."Is that trending again? It trended a bit about 10 years ago... Also, that's quite suspicious that it's showing up in your recommendations on YouTube. That probably says something about what content you've been consuming.
As Domenick mentioned, there's also the issue of executive orders. I don't know whether that's a factor in the current Supreme Court case.
Sure, but I don't think that's what this case is about.
Does the ATF utilize Administrative Law Judges? They're part of the DoJ, correct?
West Virginia is the most recent of a line of cases limiting the breadth of Chevron. The limitations have mostly been about the type of questions requiring deference and the analysis into the reasonableness of the interpretation. Thats was a gross simplification.
Hey! How ya been, Kristin?
Still kicking! Managed to circle back to the place it all started as life finds me on the same field where I learned to fly, nearly 45 years ago.
We should have the right to a jury trial in the face of any government action that involves loss or reduction of a privilege or activity or financial loss. At a minimum, the proceeding needs to be in front of a real judge instead of what is essentially an employee of the plaintiff.
That is something that certainly makes sense on the surface.
Sure, I understand re: evidentiary rules.
For those unfamiliar with the Chevron Doctrine/Deference:
I question the "expertise" that these judges have. Take for example Judge Woody who handle the northeast. He primary qualification is that he was an Air Force JAG officer. I doubt that he had much exposure to civil aviation in that capacity. At least he could probably spell "aileron", but other than that, I am not sure how helpful that background would be.
Having a tough time following that train of thought, because federal judges rule against federal agencies as the plaintiff routinely.
I’s argue you see a lot of that today in federal civil cases, which offer due process, whereas the ALJ process does not. With an ALJ today, the executive branch makes the regulation to implement a law, prosecutes the violations, and also gets to judge that prosecution.
Do you happen to have a link? (Not being antagonistic - I'm genuinely interested in reading it). Also I don't have a WSJ account if it's behind a paywall.
Let me know if this link works; it shouldn't be paywalled. I'll PM you a pdf of the article if it doesn't.
It does not, though there is an option to create a free account. I may do that.
Here's the pdf.
Thanks.
Not directly. What rubs me raw is giving any agency unchecked power. In the instance of ALJs in general, it’s not the role I have a problem with, it’s the process, and primarily it’s the lack of due process across the spectrum. When you get to choose who gets to hear the cases, under what rules they’ll be heard, and which appeals processes are at play, things start to smell like a kangaroo court. If integrity to the process is a hallmark for perception, it seems agencies would want to be a transparent as possible in their enforcement processes.
Without getting into politics, that’s the system that’s been set. Congress passes laws that end up in the US Code; the executive branch has to implement them, so rules are promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations. The alternative is to have Congress write the regulations into the law. That may have been beneficial for BasicMed, but generally that’s not what your or I would want for every law that’s passed.
Or have due process in a neutral third party venue, the courts.
Executive orders are based on powers delegated to the executive branch by las passed by congress, or powers delegated to the president by article 2 of the constitution. They can’t just be made up out of thin air. Congress can’t even tie its own shoes and you want 535 people to write every single regulation for the federal government?