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.

(Bloomberg Law)   While no one was looking, the 5th circuit court effectively declared the Administrative State (that little function of government that lets federal agencies enforce regulations) unconstitutional   (news.bloomberglaw.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Supreme Court of the United States, SEC's use, Judge, Court, Law, George Jarkesy Jr., Jury, United States Constitution  
•       •       •

3738 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 May 2022 at 10:24 PM (12 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


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

 
2022-05-18 5:39:38 PM  
Original Tweet:

 
2022-05-18 5:58:30 PM  
Kinda the opposite subby. They took away administrative authority and returned it to courts.
Not saying I like their call here but your characterization is bonkers.
 
2022-05-18 6:04:18 PM  

wademh: Kinda the opposite subby. They took away administrative authority and returned it to courts.
Not saying I like their call here but your characterization is bonkers.


And with the state of the courts now, what with the f*cking Repblicans tying up all nominations until they got the Chaos Goblin installed then packing the courts with young fascist idiots, that's going to be effective end of regulation.
 
2022-05-18 6:10:43 PM  
Oops, I misread the parenthetical. Headline is mostly OK. This is consistent with the recent court trend to reel in the authority of the legislature to delegate power to agencies with domain expertise. They want rule by Jim "snowball" Infofe.
 
2022-05-18 6:12:18 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-18 6:12:38 PM  
All that crowing from the Republicans about left-wing "activist judges" was a confession of what right-wing judges were going to do.
 
2022-05-18 6:12:55 PM  
Not a mind blowing observation but the game now is to send crazy shiat upstairs to scotus and invite them to remold, sculpt, or gut regulatory schemes, with the litigation, judges, attorneys, and opinions all coming out of the same fedsoc huddle https://t.co/R8RqIzDNUn

- warrior cop (@wyatt_privilege) May 18, 2022

 
2022-05-18 6:16:05 PM  
But immigration judges still can't be challenged.
 
2022-05-18 6:16:54 PM  
The complaint was that the financial wunderk*nts in question were no tried by a jury but under the authorities Congress has granted to the SEC as a Court in the prosecution and punishment of security frauds.

It is a long standing problem in such trials that private citizens with minimal experience in complex and incomprehensible financial trials can't understand or make decisions as they have not a inkling of the legal and financial matters being judged.

In other words, the criminals complained that they were tried by a jury of their peers in the weasel and stoat communitiy, the Wolves of Wall Street, or the Trumps.

This is something that needs to be corrected, but in the direction away from giving corporations and their parasitic and predatory pions more access to the conning of juries.

I suggest that such complicate, chaotic and criminal confabulations be judged by robot judges and supervised by robot cops who say things like "Halt Citizen! You have 20 seconds to comply before I shoot you in the back". You know, like non white people and non white criminals.
 
2022-05-18 6:17:39 PM  

bingethinker: All that crowing from the Republicans about left-wing "activist judges" was a confession of what right-wing judges were going to do.


Every
Accusation
Is
A
Confession
 
2022-05-18 6:20:56 PM  
I dropped the key word NOT from that sentences about the weasels, stoats and wolves. Very sorry. The whole point hangs on the "were not tried". They definitely wanted to be tried by their own kind and if possible, to sit in judgement on themselves via "industry self-regulation" and the ownership of their judges on a par with their ownership of lawmakers and regulators.
 
2022-05-18 6:33:21 PM  

Bootleg: But immigration judges still can't be challenged.


Because brown people.
 
2022-05-18 6:35:44 PM  
If they're applying this narrowly to the SEC's interpretation of "securities fraud" that seemingly includes "every bad thing a public company does" then this isn't so crazy.  The SEC has been pursuing civil securities fraud cases against companies for bad things that aren't even remotely crimes (like CEOs having illicit affairs) under the theory that knowledge of those bad things was withheld from shareholders so when the CEO was fired because of the affair and the stock tanked that constituted defrauding the shareholders.

That interpretation of securities law is just completely bonkers and it is difficult to believe that it was what congress intended.

If this opinion applies this broadly, then yes, fark them - they will have created an ungovernable nation where every bit of regulatory minutia needs to be approved by congress and enjoy your arsenic water.
 
2022-05-18 6:36:04 PM  

wademh: Oops, I misread the parenthetical. Headline is mostly OK. This is consistent with the recent court trend to reel in the authority of the legislature to delegate power to agencies with domain expertise. They want rule by Jim "snowball" Infofe.


This is getting insane. It will take an act of Congress to require 8 1/2 x 11 instead of A4 for correspondence, or to specify the new security patches on government servers each month.
 
2022-05-18 7:29:20 PM  
Sounds to me like the law doesn't matter any more for some people.  I think we already knew that.
 
2022-05-18 9:49:30 PM  
I'm trying to decide how history will be written about this era. I know the fascists don't win, because they never win, because they can't actually run a stable country for any length of time before it collapses in on itself.  Then you have liberal states simply ignoring federal law on things like pot, minimum wage, and, eventually/worst-case, federal laws against abortion/birth control.

I'd like to imagine it will be called something like the Revolution of Shrugs or perhaps The Monkey's Paw Strategy, where the fascists do eventually get everything they want and still quickly lose it all in the most pathetic way possible: people just ignoring them and rendering them impotent and out of date.
 
2022-05-18 10:29:21 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: wademh: Kinda the opposite subby. They took away administrative authority and returned it to courts.
Not saying I like their call here but your characterization is bonkers.

And with the state of the courts now, what with the f*cking Repblicans tying up all nominations until they got the Chaos Goblin installed then packing the courts with young fascist idiots, that's going to be effective end of regulation.


They know that, but siding with fascists is what that account does by reflex at this point.
 
2022-05-18 10:30:07 PM  

bingethinker: All that crowing from the Republicans about left-wing "activist judges" was a confession of what right-wing judges were going to do.


Always is.
 
2022-05-18 10:32:42 PM  
Subby, on what green earth did you read that. You can't just make shiat up and hope we didn't notice.
 
2022-05-18 10:34:12 PM  
I'm don't speak legalese, but the story seems like it's more about adjudication not so much enforcement.

But it does still seem bonkers, at least to my simple brain, to have Congress make case-related decisions instead of delegating that process to an agency. It's bad enough Congress can't decide on a friggin budget.  Expecting that same body, or even a committee, to make per-case decisions undermines enforcement via backlog or expiration.
 
2022-05-18 10:34:37 PM  
5th Circuit is DURRBA DURRRBA DURRRR circuit.
 
2022-05-18 10:36:40 PM  
History repeats itself.
And fascists don't read history books.
But they all end the same way.
 
2022-05-18 10:37:04 PM  

bingethinker: All that crowing from the Republicans about left-wing "activist judges" was a confession of what right-wing judges were going to do.


More like "Strike first before the left does it" which is how they rationalize it.
 
2022-05-18 10:37:29 PM  

TheBigJerk: bingethinker: All that crowing from the Republicans about left-wing "activist judges" was a confession of what right-wing judges were going to do.

Always is.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-18 10:38:35 PM  

enry: bingethinker: All that crowing from the Republicans about left-wing "activist judges" was a confession of what right-wing judges were going to do.

Every
Accusation
Is
A
C
onfession


Fark user imageView Full Size


No not you. Get out of here!

[image.jpg shuffles off w/ head slumped into chest]

Oh christ... FINE. Here's a new vacuum tube.
 
2022-05-18 10:39:57 PM  
What it means to my eyes is that the SEC can't just hold hearings with an administrative law judge, they have to refer the whole thing to an actual court with a sitting judge for a full trial.

It's not the same thing as saying the SEC can't enforce it, just that they can't also be the judge in the case.

I dunno, banks, do you WANT all your fraud cases going before a jury of 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty?
 
2022-05-18 10:42:14 PM  

MurphyMurphy: TheBigJerk: bingethinker: All that crowing from the Republicans about left-wing "activist judges" was a confession of what right-wing judges were going to do.

Always is.

[Fark user image 425x286]


And then Lee Atwater, and then Karl Rove -- two more Nazis in the endless stream of GOP Nazis.
 
2022-05-18 10:43:31 PM  

gameshowhost: 5th Circuit is DURRBA DURRRBA DURRRR circuit.


This was less of a problem before the fascists succeeded in corrupting the Supreme Court.
 
2022-05-18 10:44:24 PM  

Gyrfalcon: What it means to my eyes is that the SEC can't just hold hearings with an administrative law judge, they have to refer the whole thing to an actual court with a sitting judge for a full trial.

It's not the same thing as saying the SEC can't enforce it, just that they can't also be the judge in the case.

I dunno, banks, do you WANT all your fraud cases going before a jury of 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty?


This country relies so heavily on admin law hearings that the courts can't possibly keep up. It'll overload the court system and allow all kinds of illegal garbage to go unchallenged for years on end.
 
2022-05-18 10:45:58 PM  
I'm not getting why this is so terrible. Do we not deserve trial by jury? This case didn't outlaw the "Deep State" or anything did it?

This is one of those situations where I'll have to read what a bunch of lawyers think.
 
2022-05-18 10:46:25 PM  

erik-k: gameshowhost: 5th Circuit is DURRBA DURRRBA DURRRR circuit.

This was less of a problem before the fascists succeeded in corrupting the Supreme Court.


Yes. They were always a threat though. The risk was crystal clear.

/i'm thinking that a certain party shouldn't have buddied up and backslapped with a certain fascist party
 
2022-05-18 10:47:11 PM  
So all those ATF rulings...

/sweet
 
2022-05-18 10:49:25 PM  
At what point does the Executive just ignore the courts?  The batshiat insanity from the reactionary activist judges is creating more and more legal chaos.
 
2022-05-18 10:50:05 PM  

Resin33: I'm not getting why this is so terrible. Do we not deserve trial by jury? This case didn't outlaw the "Deep State" or anything did it?

This is one of those situations where I'll have to read what a bunch of lawyers think.


Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish
 
2022-05-18 10:50:08 PM  

koder: I'm trying to decide how history will be written about this era. I know the fascists don't win, because they never win, because they can't actually run a stable country for any length of time before it collapses in on itself.  Then you have liberal states simply ignoring federal law on things like pot, minimum wage, and, eventually/worst-case, federal laws against abortion/birth control.

I'd like to imagine it will be called something like the Revolution of Shrugs or perhaps The Monkey's Paw Strategy, where the fascists do eventually get everything they want and still quickly lose it all in the most pathetic way possible: people just ignoring them and rendering them impotent and out of date.


"Fascists don't win" - unfortunately that is 100% not the case.  All around the world there are examples of perfectly fine democracies slowly skidding into fascism, then all at once.  There is no 'default state of democracy' any more than there is a default state of anything else.

Democracy is something you have to fight to keep.
 
2022-05-18 10:53:12 PM  

Gyrfalcon: What it means to my eyes is that the SEC can't just hold hearings with an administrative law judge, they have to refer the whole thing to an actual court with a sitting judge for a full trial.

It's not the same thing as saying the SEC can't enforce it, just that they can't also be the judge in the case.

I dunno, banks, do you WANT all your fraud cases going before a jury of 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty?


It means at least that administrative agencies - any of them - cannot be delegated authority to punish regulatory violations because it violates the 7th amendment. So pretty much the end of any regulation of food, medicine, water... you name it.  Congress and the judiciary would have to become the epa, fda, the sec, and everything else. That or the regulatory state ceases to be, which I assume is the point here.

It's madness.  It is unworkable in a modern state the size and complexity of the US. And it brings us one step closer to the federal judiciary radicalizing itself into irrelevance. If the Supreme Court agrees with this, it would be ignored. It would pretty much have to be.
 
2022-05-18 10:53:35 PM  
Pretty sure the West Virginia v EPA is going to be the case to strike down the administrative state, not this one.

Mainly due to the fact that a ruling against the EPA will state that federal agencies do not have the ability to make any rules and/or regulations without going before Congress and asking them to pass said rules and regulations.

The disgusting thing about that case is that it was brought based on a law that never actually ever went into effect (The Clean Power Plan).  But the SCOTUS knew it would be yet another hammer to use against the actual running of the federal government, so they let it go forward.
 
2022-05-18 10:54:21 PM  

Resin33: I'm not getting why this is so terrible. Do we not deserve trial by jury? This case didn't outlaw the "Deep State" or anything did it?

This is one of those situations where I'll have to read what a bunch of lawyers think.


The law is weird and complicated, so in times like these, it is best to just look at the reactions of court watchers (especially those who typically advocate/side with the little guy).

And those folks are pulling the fire alarm saying if this becomes the law of the land, and if it is expanded to all the other agencies (which seems to be the political goal at some point) it will gut the enforcement ability of agencies to enforce all the day-to-day rules that make everything go.

Regulations, typically, are written in blood (as the saying goes related to OSHA).  If the regulations are effectively unenforceable, then you'll have an immediate race to the bottom.
 
2022-05-18 10:54:37 PM  

brantgoose: I suggest that such complicate, chaotic and criminal confabulations be judged by robot judges and supervised by robot cops who say things like "Halt Citizen! You have 20 seconds to comply before I shoot you in the back". You know, like non white people and non white criminals.


Not true, they shoot white people too...the poor ones.
 
2022-05-18 10:56:37 PM  
 
2022-05-18 10:56:43 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [Link][Fark user image image 593x927]


"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.'"

Why do you hate the Bill of Rights?
 
2022-05-18 10:56:47 PM  
George Jarkesy Jr. established two hedge funds with around $24 million in assets and brought in Patriot28 LLC as an investment adviser. They allegedly misrepresented investment parameters and safeguards and overvalued assets to increase the fees they could charge

You know...patriots.
 
2022-05-18 11:00:32 PM  

Resin33: I'm not getting why this is so terrible. Do we not deserve trial by jury? This case didn't outlaw the "Deep State" or anything did it?

This is one of those situations where I'll have to read what a bunch of lawyers think.


You don't want a jury of morons for financial crimes because the laws and damages that these laws cover are extremely technical.  You'd have an easier time teaching a goldfish physics than you would teaching the average American anything about finance law or the stock market.
 
2022-05-18 11:02:45 PM  

Resin33: I'm not getting why this is so terrible. Do we not deserve trial by jury? This case didn't outlaw the "Deep State" or anything did it?

This is one of those situations where I'll have to read what a bunch of lawyers think.


Let's say a major corporation starts dumping raw sewage into a municipal water supply. The EPA is prohibited from bringing an enforcement action to get them to stop, because we are now saying the constitution requires giving them their day in court.

Try and take a guess how long it would take to get a successful injunction against the company under normal circumstances. Then as an exponent, factor in the number of additional years it will take when there is no EPA to streamline the process, and courts have to handle this and every other regulatory matter formerly handled by a constellation of federal agencies that effectively nownno longer exist.

Your grandkids may live long enough to see the injunction finally take effect.
 
2022-05-18 11:04:43 PM  

NM Volunteer: At what point does the Executive just ignore the courts?  The batshiat insanity from the reactionary activist judges is creating more and more legal chaos.


I forget which POTUS did that. Andrew Johnson maybe? Whoever it was, was all "okay, try to enforce that. kthxbye."

Not that it's the road we want to keep going down, but it's a road we might be forced to take if the courts ignore the whole co-equal branches thing. Not that they were ever co-equal in actual power, but in theory at least.

/legislative was always supposed to have been most powerful, in actuality
//then executive
///then courts
//now it's backwards, flipped on its head
sǝᴉɥsɐls ǝʌᴉɟ/
 
2022-05-18 11:05:56 PM  
very sorry for calling judicial branch 'courts'. truly. 14 hrs into the day w/o a nap? totally awake af.
 
2022-05-18 11:06:21 PM  
Gonna be a lot more rich judges soon
 
2022-05-18 11:07:18 PM  

OceanVortex: koder: I'm trying to decide how history will be written about this era. I know the fascists don't win, because they never win, because they can't actually run a stable country for any length of time before it collapses in on itself.  Then you have liberal states simply ignoring federal law on things like pot, minimum wage, and, eventually/worst-case, federal laws against abortion/birth control.

I'd like to imagine it will be called something like the Revolution of Shrugs or perhaps The Monkey's Paw Strategy, where the fascists do eventually get everything they want and still quickly lose it all in the most pathetic way possible: people just ignoring them and rendering them impotent and out of date.

"Fascists don't win" - unfortunately that is 100% not the case.  All around the world there are examples of perfectly fine democracies slowly skidding into fascism, then all at once.  There is no 'default state of democracy' any more than there is a default state of anything else.

Democracy is something you have to fight to keep.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-18 11:12:04 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: wademh: Kinda the opposite subby. They took away administrative authority and returned it to courts.
Not saying I like their call here but your characterization is bonkers.

And with the state of the courts now, what with the f*cking Repblicans tying up all nominations until they got the Chaos Goblin installed then packing the courts with young fascist idiots, that's going to be effective end of regulation.


Huh? Republicans suck, they stone-walled a lot of Obama's nominees and if they win the Senate this year they'll probably go back to the same, but Biden has gotten more judges confirmed than Trump had by this point in his presidency. The Republicans aren't currently tying up his nominations, because they can't, and as bad as Manchin and Sinema are for a lot of things, they've been reliable for judicial nominees.
 
2022-05-18 11:18:54 PM  

OceanVortex: koder: I'm trying to decide how history will be written about this era. I know the fascists don't win, because they never win, because they can't actually run a stable country for any length of time before it collapses in on itself.  Then you have liberal states simply ignoring federal law on things like pot, minimum wage, and, eventually/worst-case, federal laws against abortion/birth control.

I'd like to imagine it will be called something like the Revolution of Shrugs or perhaps The Monkey's Paw Strategy, where the fascists do eventually get everything they want and still quickly lose it all in the most pathetic way possible: people just ignoring them and rendering them impotent and out of date.

"Fascists don't win" - unfortunately that is 100% not the case.  All around the world there are examples of perfectly fine democracies slowly skidding into fascism, then all at once.  There is no 'default state of democracy' any more than there is a default state of anything else.

Democracy is something you have to fight to keep.


Well heck, someone should've told our democratically-elected representatives that *checks notes* yep they're tasked with doing that exact job for us, since we're not a direct democracy.
 
Displayed 50 of 98 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.