Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Law and Crime)   TL/DR conservatives SCOTUS Justices want to take Federal Agencies right to try and address inequality with spending from them. Why should a hospital that serves one hundred poor people get more than a hospital that serves no poor?   (lawandcrime.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Samuel Alito, Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Neil Gorsuch, John G. Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Administrative law, Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Clarence Thomas  
•       •       •

1774 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Nov 2021 at 2:50 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



62 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-11-29 2:18:42 PM  
Help poor people?  That's church talk. I'm sure the SCOTUS will strongly adhere to the separation of church and state and shaft the poor as always.
 
2021-11-29 2:20:38 PM  
Letting the poors just die allows more of our betters to afford larger yachts for next season.

I mean, don't you understand that? How can they just keep the same yacht year after year? That's just disgusting.
 
2021-11-29 2:36:31 PM  
You mean 'why should the US help or care about poor people at all?' They work for the same assholes Congress does- and it isn't the poor.
 
2021-11-29 2:49:00 PM  
Conservatism is a failed ideology and it's going to burn his country to the ground.
 
2021-11-29 2:53:10 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Alas, it seems that we get:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-11-29 2:53:46 PM  
This wouldn't be a problem in the first place if we just got rid of private health insurance.
 
2021-11-29 2:54:26 PM  
Why are people even bothering to call it a Court let alone the Supreme Court. Laws, precedent, stare decisis and professional ethics mean nothing to 6 justices and they are simply partisan hacks that only care about implementing their fascist theocratic agenda. Part of the republican plan to destroy democracy by destruction of Institutions. Republicans including the shills on the court are evil and Anti American.
 
2021-11-29 2:54:31 PM  

dr_blasto: Conservatism is a failed ideology and it's going to burn his country to the ground.


No, no no. If we just conserve harder and fark over more poor and disadvantaged persons, then America will once again be that shining city on the hill. Remember Supply Side Jesus.
 
2021-11-29 2:57:06 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-11-29 2:57:59 PM  
They are arguing that it is not enough for Congress to empower executive agencies to research and implement policy, all policies must be passed by Congress itself in order for them to be implemented.

Note that would mean every environmental, safety, and food/drug regulation would need 60 votes in the Senate and the requisite multi-week amendment process. Would all the COVID vaccines get approval or would there be jockeying to approve Pfizer vs. Moderna based on how many jobs they create in a district?
 
2021-11-29 2:59:55 PM  
FTA: tenet of administrative law known as "Chevron deference," which allows administrative agencies to set rules of statutory interpretation for administrative regulations.

Point of interest: In Canada, that is the norm. Our legislation is far shorter and les complicated than the humongous law passed in the USA. Mostly that is because we defer to the experts we hire in agencies. We require our agencies to hire from industry and encourage our agency staff to get jobs in industry after a few years, so that there is a lot of shared "institutional memory." The downside is that compared to the USA, when we have industry-friendly, ahem, coddling and favouritism, we have a harder time pointing to the source, though.
 
2021-11-29 3:00:23 PM  
Why should so-called 'supreme' court justices get more money than other justices?

It's $.79 extra for a teaspoon of sour cream.
 
2021-11-29 3:01:53 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: FTA: tenet of administrative law known as "Chevron deference," which allows administrative agencies to set rules of statutory interpretation for administrative regulations.

Point of interest: In Canada, that is the norm. Our legislation is far shorter and les complicated than the humongous law passed in the USA. Mostly that is because we defer to the experts we hire in agencies. We require our agencies to hire from industry and encourage our agency staff to get jobs in industry after a few years, so that there is a lot of shared "institutional memory." The downside is that compared to the USA, when we have industry-friendly, ahem, coddling and favouritism, we have a harder time pointing to the source, though.


"We require our agencies to hire from industry and encourage our agency staff to get jobs in industry after a few years, so that there is a lot of shared "institutional memory." "

I think I found the source.
 
2021-11-29 3:02:28 PM  
hey we'd be the anti-get-alonig jack rags if we were unwilling to make any compromises at all.
And hey, they lay it out for us real easy here.

Ok fine, you are right, every govt funded anything must all be equally funded no matter what.

So the fook we'll obviously need to get busy applying this to public education, and fund all public schools equally now instead of allowing the wealthy land taxes to be kept locally for their wealthy land owners "public" schools only.

And now all the schools will be equally funded, so there. I'm willing to compromise in the exact way, they seem to have laid out for us.
Don't sound too bad to me really, better education likely leads to fewer people needing medical treatments for a wide variety of things. So probably a good compromise to make in the long run really.
 
2021-11-29 3:02:43 PM  

snowblur: Alas, it seems that we get:


i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2021-11-29 3:06:04 PM  
The legal question is too complex for intelligent and informed discussion on Fark. Even SCOTUS seems confused by the subject.
 
2021-11-29 3:07:44 PM  

bthom37: Bennie Crabtree: FTA: tenet of administrative law known as "Chevron deference," which allows administrative agencies to set rules of statutory interpretation for administrative regulations.

Point of interest: In Canada, that is the norm. Our legislation is far shorter and les complicated than the humongous law passed in the USA. Mostly that is because we defer to the experts we hire in agencies. We require our agencies to hire from industry and encourage our agency staff to get jobs in industry after a few years, so that there is a lot of shared "institutional memory." The downside is that compared to the USA, when we have industry-friendly, ahem, coddling and favouritism, we have a harder time pointing to the source, though.

"We require our agencies to hire from industry and encourage our agency staff to get jobs in industry after a few years, so that there is a lot of shared "institutional memory." "

I think I found the source.


I mean America has a lot of regulatory capture issues as well, and going back to Gerald Ford the process of any agency doing any sort of regulation is a process of saying "here is a draft of what we intend to do; please tell us all the issues you have with this plan" to the related trade groups and businesses and negotiating a number of exemptions and reworking the system until they give the all clear.

It's not a great system, but it certainly moves along which is not something you can say for Congress.
 
2021-11-29 3:08:02 PM  

Grungehamster: They are arguing that it is not enough for Congress to empower executive agencies to research and implement policy, all policies must be passed by Congress itself in order for them to be implemented.


Not the way I read it. It sounds more like if something is ambiguous (in this case "eligible for" vs "entitled to" in the law as written) should it be up to the agency to interpret what it means or should the courts make that decision. The entire case rests on the agency telling the court to throw out the case because they have carte blanche to interpret law, whereas the counterargument is that if something is unclear the court should be the final arbiter.

I don't see anyone saying that an executive agency has no right to create its own policy.
 
2021-11-29 3:08:34 PM  

red5ish: The legal question is too complex for intelligent and informed discussion on Fark. Even SCOTUS seems confused by the subject.


SCOTUS is confused by things like individual rights, freedom, and democracy.
 
2021-11-29 3:09:43 PM  

red5ish: The legal question is too complex for intelligent and informed discussion on Fark. Even SCOTUS seems confused by the subject.


Yeah, the usual dogpiling on the conservative justices would make more sense if any of the nine justices would defend what HHS has been doing here, but even Sotomayor attacked it. There's an actual problem here.
 
2021-11-29 3:09:44 PM  

Grungehamster: bthom37: Bennie Crabtree: FTA: tenet of administrative law known as "Chevron deference," which allows administrative agencies to set rules of statutory interpretation for administrative regulations.

Point of interest: In Canada, that is the norm. Our legislation is far shorter and les complicated than the humongous law passed in the USA. Mostly that is because we defer to the experts we hire in agencies. We require our agencies to hire from industry and encourage our agency staff to get jobs in industry after a few years, so that there is a lot of shared "institutional memory." The downside is that compared to the USA, when we have industry-friendly, ahem, coddling and favouritism, we have a harder time pointing to the source, though.

"We require our agencies to hire from industry and encourage our agency staff to get jobs in industry after a few years, so that there is a lot of shared "institutional memory." "

I think I found the source.

I mean America has a lot of regulatory capture issues as well, and going back to Gerald Ford the process of any agency doing any sort of regulation is a process of saying "here is a draft of what we intend to do; please tell us all the issues you have with this plan" to the related trade groups and businesses and negotiating a number of exemptions and reworking the system until they give the all clear.

It's not a great system, but it certainly moves along which is not something you can say for Congress.


Oh yeah, our system is farking awful as well.
 
2021-11-29 3:10:45 PM  

red5ish: The legal question is too complex for intelligent and informed discussion on Fark. Even SCOTUS seems confused by the subject.


Yep, I'm trying to decide if I should spend the time to download the actual suit and dig into it, since this does impact my job.
 
2021-11-29 3:15:48 PM  
They've figured out how to get $$$$ from the poors* but those lazy shiat poors just keep asking for more.
You poors have to realize the government has only so much money, and after my tax breaks PLUS taking $$$$$$ care of the poors, it only goes so far.

(* it's from the government)
 
2021-11-29 3:17:29 PM  

Shaggy_C: Grungehamster: They are arguing that it is not enough for Congress to empower executive agencies to research and implement policy, all policies must be passed by Congress itself in order for them to be implemented.

Not the way I read it. It sounds more like if something is ambiguous (in this case "eligible for" vs "entitled to" in the law as written) should it be up to the agency to interpret what it means or should the courts make that decision. The entire case rests on the agency telling the court to throw out the case because they have carte blanche to interpret law, whereas the counterargument is that if something is unclear the court should be the final arbiter.

I don't see anyone saying that an executive agency has no right to create its own policy.


Sorry, was getting this mixed up with West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency which is a case the Supreme Court arguing that the EPA can't put any greenhouse emissions in place under former frameworks without Congress writing new laws.
 
2021-11-29 3:18:56 PM  
For what it's worth, from that article I believe the suit is about Lifetime Benefit Days, which are a benefit for inpatient hospital stays.  Once you've used those (and your annual allotment of days that resets annually), you gotta pay for your hospital stay personally.

Makes sense that low income areas would have patients who've exhausted their lifetime benefit days.  Not so sure about the "Chevron Deference" thing, that needs researching or someone more knowledgeable than I.
 
2021-11-29 3:18:59 PM  
The justices were noticeably skeptical about granting "Chevron deference" to federal administrative agencies during oral arguments Monday.

Ah, yes...the, er, Chevrolet defence...of course.
 
2021-11-29 3:22:40 PM  

guestguy: The justices were noticeably skeptical about granting "Chevron deference" to federal administrative agencies during oral arguments Monday.

Ah, yes...the, er, Chevrolet defence...of course.


SCOTUS: Friends don't let friends drive Chevys.
 
2021-11-29 3:25:07 PM  

i state your name: guestguy: The justices were noticeably skeptical about granting "Chevron deference" to federal administrative agencies during oral arguments Monday.

Ah, yes...the, er, Chevrolet defence...of course.

SCOTUS: Friends don't let friends drive Chevys.


tse4.mm.bing.netView Full Size
 
2021-11-29 3:28:48 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: FTA: tenet of administrative law known as "Chevron deference," which allows administrative agencies to set rules of statutory interpretation for administrative regulations.

Point of interest: In Canada, that is the norm. Our legislation is far shorter and les complicated than the humongous law passed in the USA. Mostly that is because we defer to the experts we hire in agencies. We require our agencies to hire from industry and encourage our agency staff to get jobs in industry after a few years, so that there is a lot of shared "institutional memory." The downside is that compared to the USA, when we have industry-friendly, ahem, coddling and favouritism, we have a harder time pointing to the source, though.


Well you gave a parliament and we have a bicameral congress and so that means we can't have nice things.
 
2021-11-29 3:32:13 PM  
Chevron Defense:

Congress passes a law regarding one of the regulatory agencies.  The regulatory agency can't figure out what it's supposed to mean. Congress tells them to just make it work.  It sounds like HHS is using this doctrine not to pay for things they should be paying for.

edmo: Help poor people?  That's church talk. I'm sure the SCOTUS will strongly adhere to the separation of church and state and shaft the poor as always.


They were grilling the HHS not the hospital asking for funds..
 
2021-11-29 3:32:40 PM  

red5ish: The legal question is too complex for intelligent and informed discussion on Fark. Even SCOTUS seems confused by the subject.


Because if there is one thing SCOTUS does is settle cases on what the law says on a consistent basis and the last thing they do is tmake a decision and totally use insane troll logic to explain it or just declare this ruling only stands for this one case and you can never use this ruling to argue another case but we ain't arbitrary
 
2021-11-29 3:34:09 PM  
So we'll see a lot more rural hospitals closing down.

WORKS FOR ME!

Die for Oligarchs Rethuglican poor!
 
2021-11-29 3:36:28 PM  
If they take away the Chevron deference, Congress will have to draft more well written laws.  Otherwise, all hell will break loose.

/prepare for malicious compliance/unintended consequences
 
2021-11-29 3:37:05 PM  

guestguy: The justices were noticeably skeptical about granting "Chevron deference" to federal administrative agencies during oral arguments Monday.

Ah, yes...the, er, Chevrolet defence...of course.


Congress in 1977 said that states that didn't reach a certain air quality would need to institute a new permit program requiring new or modified major stationary sources of air pollution be greener. Reagan took office and the EPA changed it so that it wasn't that the plants didn't have to diminish the amount of pollution just not increase the amount of pollution they were creating. The National Resource Defense Council sued the EPA and won in a lower court that the EPA's new standard conflicted with what Congress passed. Chevron appealed as one of the affected parties.

The Supreme Court ruled that seperation of powers meant it wasn't the courts' place to rule on if executive agencies were following the letter of the law, and as long as the steps taken by executive agencies were reasonable courts should leave it to Congress and the President to sort out the differences.

That was when Congress actually passed legal frameworks for this sort of policy. Now that Congress is far less likely to institute new rules and executive agencies are more proactive conservative legal minds have been pushing to reexamine the ruling.
 
2021-11-29 3:41:08 PM  
These 'deep state' policies are what softens all the blows of the right wing policy that is enacted by politicians, getting rid of them would be bad in the short term but might wake people up to the reality of what fiscal conservatism means.
 
2021-11-29 3:47:21 PM  
It's crazy to me that when the Chevron case came out, liberals were largely up in arms about it and conservatives were the ones in favor.  Flip the script and it is now conservatives who hate it and liberals who love it.
 
2021-11-29 3:47:59 PM  
Just call it now; SCOTUS is gonna rule in favor of the rich again.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-11-29 3:48:03 PM  
Poor? You mean *ahem*  "urban" poor or "hard working" poor?
 
2021-11-29 3:50:22 PM  

Dr. Bison: Poor? You mean *ahem*  "urban" poor or "hard working" poor?


It's Empire in the case, which is a NY based insurer, so they probably mean "urban" poor.
 
2021-11-29 3:51:54 PM  
Nothing shows christianity as a religion of hate and rape better than the current make up of the SCOTUS.
 
2021-11-29 3:55:22 PM  
JFC. Imagine being a rich white dude(s) and whining and crying about Medicare spending for the poor. All the advantages you have, all the pluses and bonuses you get, and you're out there with a magnifying glass and index cards looking for shiat like this. "No no, this spending must be exactly the same, no one can benefit more than me".

For farks sake, assholes.
 
2021-11-29 3:55:30 PM  
It quoted Sotomayor too criticizing, but I guess that took too much RTFA for subby.

Also, reading that  many references to Chevron test made me have nightmares about my Statutory Interpretation/Administrative Law classes.
 
2021-11-29 3:57:44 PM  

NewportBarGuy: i state your name: guestguy: The justices were noticeably skeptical about granting "Chevron deference" to federal administrative agencies during oral arguments Monday.

Ah, yes...the, er, Chevrolet defence...of course.

SCOTUS: Friends don't let friends drive Chevys.

[tse4.mm.bing.net image 474x355]


The Family Truckster was a Ford LTD station wagon...
 
2021-11-29 4:05:45 PM  

Mikey1969: NewportBarGuy: i state your name: guestguy: The justices were noticeably skeptical about granting "Chevron deference" to federal administrative agencies during oral arguments Monday.

Ah, yes...the, er, Chevrolet defence...of course.

SCOTUS: Friends don't let friends drive Chevys.

[tse4.mm.bing.net image 474x355]

The Family Truckster was a Ford LTD station wagon...


Don't care, any post with a National Lampoon's Vacation reference gets a Funny from me.
 
2021-11-29 4:06:04 PM  

pdieten: red5ish: The legal question is too complex for intelligent and informed discussion on Fark. Even SCOTUS seems confused by the subject.

Yeah, the usual dogpiling on the conservative justices would make more sense if any of the nine justices would defend what HHS has been doing here, but even Sotomayor attacked it. There's an actual problem here.


The wealthy would really like it if their upscale for-profit hospitals could get a lot more government money, even if it forces rural and poor hospitals to go bankrupt, killing many thousands of elderly and disabled Americans.
I understand they have "concerns" about wealthier Americans, many of whom have not paid into Medicare yet will benefit indirectly from striking down this policy from the high salary earning professionals in their area who take Medicare coverage in retirement.
This is one of many reasons why our semi-private system is a farce.  We pay close to triple the amount of money to provide world class healthcare for every American, independent of employment status.  Maybe the court should strike down portions of our existing system to fix it, like the absurd, laughable management costs that add no value whatsoever.
 
2021-11-29 4:07:47 PM  
So, either spend the money and save lives, or kill poor people and save money. Wonder which conservatives are favoring?
 
2021-11-29 4:10:45 PM  

snowblur: [Fark user image 850x473]

Alas, it seems that we get:

[Fark user image 640x640]


Better

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-11-29 4:20:54 PM  
The Justice Department was named ironically.
 
2021-11-29 4:55:46 PM  

GardenWeasel: snowblur: [Fark user image 850x473]

Alas, it seems that we get:

[Fark user image 640x640]

Better

[Fark user image 850x637]


But how do you determine it was a homerun with no fence?
 
2021-11-29 5:12:02 PM  

UltimaCS: This wouldn't be a problem in the first place if we just got rid of private health insurance.


This.

They have done the math.  By "they", I mean real economists.  It would cost each individual person in the US, less money for healthcare than we currently pay.

To throw some bullshiat numbers at it; if we pay $20,000 a year for healthcare now, they could raise our taxes by $10,000 a year, that is all you would pay for healthcare at all.  You would pay less than you do now, and EVERYONE in the country would have healthcare.

As long as the government is being paid by the insurance companies, there is no incentive at all for them to change this.  The current system benefits THEM.  The other system would benefit US and NOT THEM.  Which do you think they will choose?
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.