Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: didjuneau who wrote (222326)	12/17/2022 12:12:31 AM
From: didjuneau	Respond to of 224704

Brunson case headed to conference on Jan. 6. rumble.com Brunson’s Case Could Restore Trump to Presidency!!!, 3971 By Bill Still Dec. 14, 2022 rumble.com thestillreport.com Good evening. I’m Still reporting on the coup. According to law professor Tim Canova, the Brunson’s Supreme Court case which was recently scheduled for conference on Jan. 6, 2023, could result in the restoration of President Donald Trump to the presidency. Going to conference is the last step before a case actually comes before the United States Supreme Court where oral arguments are heard, and a decision eventually rendered. Every year, between seven and eight thousand requests – known as cert petitions – are filed with the Supreme Court. Granting a cert petition requires the vote of four of the nine justices. Only about 1% of such requests – or about 80 per year – are granted by the high court. However, as we heard from Loy Brunson in our interview with him last night, being granted admission to a Supreme Court conference under the conditions of a national emergency are exceedingly rare and so it is assumed that the Brunson’s cert petition will be granted and the entire court will hear the case. According to Professor Canova, the Brunson’s case seeks: “… the removal of President Biden and Vice President Harris, along with 291 U.S. Representatives and 94 U.S. Senators who voted to certify the Electors to the Electoral College on January 6, 2021… “… without first investigating serious allegations of election fraud in half a dozen states and foreign election interference and breach of national security in the 2020 Presidential Election.” Professor Canova opines that conservatives on the Court my feel that the Brunson’s case is the only way to stop the bleeding of what has been essentially a coup d’état against the United States. This may be the only way they can remove public officials who have violated their constitutional Oaths of Office… “… by rubber-stamping Electors on Jan. 6th without first conducting any investigation of serious allegations of election fraud and foreign election interference.” But the Justices may be considering the consequences of mounting low-intensity-conflict style of warfare by the Chinese. For example, what if there is evidence that the raging fentanyl epidemic is a deliberate attempt to kill as many young Americans as possible. If the COVID didn’t get ‘em, maybe the killer drugs coming in across our southern border will. And who is behind the crime wave raging across most of America’s major urban centers? And finally, if the FBI and intelligence community have now moved over to side with China in the belief that they will be the eventual winners in this low-intensity conflict, then are we describing widespread treason? According to Prof. Canova, Congress did nothing to investigate the mountain of evidence of rigged elections across the fruited plains during Election 2020, when given the Constitutional imperative to do so on Jan. 6, 2021. “The fact that the Brunson case has made it to the Court’s docket suggests profound concerns about a lawless January 6th Congressional committee, “…politicized federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and major constitutional violations intended to overthrow an elected government by manipulating the outcome of the presidential election.” “The Brunson lawsuit does not claim the election was stolen, merely that a large majority of Congress, by failing to investigate such serious allegations of election rigging and breaches of national security,… “… violated their Oaths to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic – an Oath also taken by Supreme Court Justices and members of the U.S. military.” So, there are plenty of reasons that some of the most informed members of America’s third co-equal branch of government - the judicial branch - feel like they are the last bastions of freedom, and if they don’t move quickly, all hope may soon be lost. I’m still reporting near the citadel of world freedom, and merry Christmas.

To: didjuneau who wrote (222326)	5/2/2023 10:57:48 PM
From: didjuneau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224704

Supreme Court gets a chance to rein in the bureaucracy. the definition of "reasonable" has been stretched beyond reason. Supreme Court grants review of landmark case that may strip significant power from federal government CHRIS ENLOE May 01, 2023 OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images The Supreme Court will hear a case in the next term that could remove a significant amount of power from the federal government. What is the case about? On Monday, the court granted review of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The case was brought by herring fishermen in New England, challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's authority to force them to carry a monitor on their vessels who ensures the fishermen comply with federal regulations. Not only do fishermen not have a say in whether monitors are placed on their vessels, but they are forced to pay the monitor's salary. The industry estimates the regulations reduce their profits by 20%. What is the significance of the case? The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to answer the following question: Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.The case, then, could gut the Chevron doctrine, established by the landmark Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. in 1984. "In Chevron, the Supreme Court set forth a legal test as to when the court should defer to the agency’s answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable, so long as Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question," Cornell Law explains. In layman's terms, the Chevron Doctrine significantly empowers the federal government because in the absence of explicit statutory language (for which Congress is responsible), the courts defer to the executive branch's "reasonable" statutory interpretation. Unsurprisingly, those interpretations almost always favor the federal government, because the definition of "reasonable" has been stretched beyond reason. The potential implications of Loper Bright cannot be ignored because the government stands to lose a significant amount of power. But as law professor Jonathan Adler explained, the Supreme Court is not likely to overrule Chevron altogether. It is more likely the Court merely takes the opportunity to narrow the doctrine and make clear that statutory silences and ambiguities should not be construed as grants of agency authority," Alder reacted. Ironically, the case made it to the Supreme Court because the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals applied Chevron deference, ruling 2-1 that the government is justified in its interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thus, they ruled that the monitor program, which hamstrings herring fishermen, is legal. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals until last June, recused herself from the case.