"My guns were safer under Obama, blah, blah..."

[DoggyDaddy]

Umm ... you guys DO know who Mike is, right?

I didn't. Had to look him up.

 

[Twangbanger]

Umm ... you guys DO know who Mike is, right?

Nope.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Z._Williamson

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I've been hearing about "Chevron deference" (mentioned in Mike's post) and wasn't really familiar with it so I finally looked it up. What a load of crap it is!

https://ballotpedia.org/Chevron_deference_(doctrine)

[h=4]Step one
[/h]A court must determine whether Congress expressed intent in the statute and, if so, whether or not the statute's intent is ambiguous.

• If the intent of Congress is unambiguous, or clearly stated, then the inquiry must end. Agencies must carry out the clearly expressed intent of Congress.
• If, however, the intent of Congress is unclear, or if the statute lacks direct language on a specific point, then a federal court must decide whether the agency interpretation is based on a permissible construction of the statute—one that is not arbitrary or capricious or obviously contrary to the statute.

[h=4]Step two[/h]In examining the agency's reasonable construction, a court must assess whether the decision of Congress to leave an ambiguity, or fail to include express language on a specific point, was done explicitly or implicitly.

• If the decision of Congress was explicit, then the agency’s regulations are binding on federal courts unless those regulations are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to statute.
• If the decision of Congress was implicit, then so long as the agency's interpretation is reasonable, a federal court cannot substitute its own statutory construction superior to the agency's construction.[SUP][[/SUP]

 

[Twangbanger]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Z._Williamson

An imaginary-world libertarian syfy nerd?

Cool. If true, should fit right in here