Conservatives would love to return to the Gilded Age and the era of the robber barons, where greed has no bounds. I'm a retired academic whose expertise is Federal tax law so I'm familiar with regulations, administrative rulings and court decisions. I also know that the English language has so many words that mean the same thing, or almost the same thing, or have no real definition (i.e., income). It is not possible to write a law that encompasses perfect definitions and covers all the bases. The example I used in class was to imagine you're a parent who "grounds" your child. What does it mean to ground your child. Can they go outside (and if so, how far outside), if they can go outside can they talk to non-family members outside, can they attend extra-curricular activities, use their phone or computer or other electronic device, go to the library, and on and on and on. This is an assault on expertise and it doesn't go on in business organizations. Look at all the different departments in any medium or large corporation. The CEO isn't making the day-to-day operating decisions, there are "experts" within the company who do that.
This is the next big decision I've been dreading them getting around to, we've been kneecapping our few regulatory agencies in staff and budget and every other way possible and I fear this is going to be to regulatory agencies what Citizens United was to transparency in political donations.
"To anyone not brain-poisoned by conservative dogma, this decision makes intuitive sense. Congress is not capable of passing laws with a granular enough level of detail to cover all possible circumstances."
I spent 30 years in a federal agency and understand this at a fundamental level. Congress passes laws, which are then sent to the appropriate agencies which create administrative policies, rules, and regulations to implement those laws. These regulations are sent out to the public as Notices of Proposed Rulemaking for comment, at which time interested parties can argue for or against something in the proposed rule, thus giving "we, the people" a direct say in the government. Every comment must be considered and addressed, so all those rich folks would have the ability to offer opinions against raising their taxes.
That part of the process should not be taken away.
Reading column after column - rape pregnancies in red states without the ability to get an abortion, Oklahoma’s hiring of a rabid anti-LBGTQ TikTok-er for a committee on education, this column - continues to prove that the RW, whether Trump is President or not, has already destroyed so many of the good things about our country. They are a reprehensible bunch, totally without decency and should be treated as such. And their enablers are worse.
I have a lot of scorn of right-wing judges. They are choosing to harm the people of our country so those who have more than they could ever need can easily obtain more. Is this what the people really want? I highly doubt it. Unfortunately, because MAGAs are so destructive to everything good, we may go back to the days of smog where you can't see the sky (I remember NYC smog), pollution in the air and water, toxic grounds where people get sick (Erin Brockovich). Every negative connotation describes the extreme right-wingers in our country: stupidity, terror, ugly and violence pretty much sums them up. I am unable to shake the surrealism that I feel about present day politics.
Gorsuch’s decision regarding the trucking company and their trucker employee felt like the canary in the coal mine at the time. This is as bad as so many of us expected.
Reasonably sure that the statute enabling the FAA doesn't include the word "bolts." Will a judge invalidate its definition of "loose bolts" saying that only when they pop and eject Iphones, or next time people, are they to be considered dangerous?
Conservatives would love to return to the Gilded Age and the era of the robber barons, where greed has no bounds. I'm a retired academic whose expertise is Federal tax law so I'm familiar with regulations, administrative rulings and court decisions. I also know that the English language has so many words that mean the same thing, or almost the same thing, or have no real definition (i.e., income). It is not possible to write a law that encompasses perfect definitions and covers all the bases. The example I used in class was to imagine you're a parent who "grounds" your child. What does it mean to ground your child. Can they go outside (and if so, how far outside), if they can go outside can they talk to non-family members outside, can they attend extra-curricular activities, use their phone or computer or other electronic device, go to the library, and on and on and on. This is an assault on expertise and it doesn't go on in business organizations. Look at all the different departments in any medium or large corporation. The CEO isn't making the day-to-day operating decisions, there are "experts" within the company who do that.
This is the next big decision I've been dreading them getting around to, we've been kneecapping our few regulatory agencies in staff and budget and every other way possible and I fear this is going to be to regulatory agencies what Citizens United was to transparency in political donations.
"To anyone not brain-poisoned by conservative dogma, this decision makes intuitive sense. Congress is not capable of passing laws with a granular enough level of detail to cover all possible circumstances."
I spent 30 years in a federal agency and understand this at a fundamental level. Congress passes laws, which are then sent to the appropriate agencies which create administrative policies, rules, and regulations to implement those laws. These regulations are sent out to the public as Notices of Proposed Rulemaking for comment, at which time interested parties can argue for or against something in the proposed rule, thus giving "we, the people" a direct say in the government. Every comment must be considered and addressed, so all those rich folks would have the ability to offer opinions against raising their taxes.
That part of the process should not be taken away.
"The Trump era highlighted the fragility of the American system of checks and balances."
Thanks, Putin. You're getting your wish.
As Elie Mystal said: It’s a power grab.
Reading column after column - rape pregnancies in red states without the ability to get an abortion, Oklahoma’s hiring of a rabid anti-LBGTQ TikTok-er for a committee on education, this column - continues to prove that the RW, whether Trump is President or not, has already destroyed so many of the good things about our country. They are a reprehensible bunch, totally without decency and should be treated as such. And their enablers are worse.
I have a lot of scorn of right-wing judges. They are choosing to harm the people of our country so those who have more than they could ever need can easily obtain more. Is this what the people really want? I highly doubt it. Unfortunately, because MAGAs are so destructive to everything good, we may go back to the days of smog where you can't see the sky (I remember NYC smog), pollution in the air and water, toxic grounds where people get sick (Erin Brockovich). Every negative connotation describes the extreme right-wingers in our country: stupidity, terror, ugly and violence pretty much sums them up. I am unable to shake the surrealism that I feel about present day politics.
If Trump is convicted of treason, wouldn’t it be reasonable to roll back his every act to the date of his crime? Unseating hundreds of judges?
But then I used that insane word, “reasonable,” which seems to have been lost.
Gorsuch’s decision regarding the trucking company and their trucker employee felt like the canary in the coal mine at the time. This is as bad as so many of us expected.
That "frozen trucker" dissent was a wowser.
Reasonably sure that the statute enabling the FAA doesn't include the word "bolts." Will a judge invalidate its definition of "loose bolts" saying that only when they pop and eject Iphones, or next time people, are they to be considered dangerous?
Thank you for removing the paywall for this important article. Can Substack create a category for retired people with limited income?
Excellent piece.
I hope Bannon doesn’t get his wish, but scared he will.🤞🏻
😳