Finland and Sweden have applied for membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a defensive alliance originally formed in 1949 to resist the expansion of the Soviet Union and now standing against Russian expansion under president Vladimir Putin. Now the 30 member nations will consider the applications. They are expected to go through, although Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said he does not view their applications positively, likely to gain concessions from the United States in ongoing negotiations. The timeline to membership will be shortened since the countries are at risk from Putin’s current policies.
One must surely ask, then, what exactly the "executive branch" is supposed to "execute," and how. Using a corporation as a example, the CEO is expected to implement directives from the Board of Directors who have been elected by the stockholders. The Board is not responsible for implementation, the CEO is.
While some legislation is poorly written, I think it is impossible as well as unwise to try to write all details of implementation into every legislation. The alternatives are placing implementation within Congress, which defies the Constitution, or not implementing any laws that are passed, which makes government by law irrelevant, replacing reason and equality with "might makes right." Fearful news from this decision if it is allowed to stand.
KEM, I am sure you listened carefully to Judge Ketanji Jackson's interview with Congress where the Republican side tried to highlight her "soft on child sexual abuse" sentencing. Nevermind she was within 70% of all like rulings by other judges......
She repeatedly used the specific guidance that was provided in a Congressional law to support her approach. She also repeatedly said that if different or more clear guidance in the law had been available it would have been helpful and she certainly would have followed that guidance.
I think, as an engineer having been thorough and detail oriented (which is work) for my career of successful project outcomes that: IF Congress is going to write a law, the law should detail at some reasonable level what the law is, how it should be enforced, and what breaking that law looks like and what sentencing, at a high level, should be applied.
Then, when everyone in America sees some big crime and fraud like the 2008 Bank Mortgage Fraud crash where nobody went to jail, we don't blame the SEC for doing absolutely nothing.
Instead......
We should blame Congress and the President when a bunch of crooks crash the economy selling a bunch of worthless securities IF there is a law on the books that says that is illegal. If there is no law on the books saying it is illegal to sell, worldwide, a known worthless security, then, well, I won't mind if nobody is arrested. It is legal. Even I can do it.
It is Congress and the President representing our interests (or not as was the case in 2008).
I think it is still legal to sell worthless assets to anyone anywhere in America even today. So, I am not too excited about the SEC since they already appear to me as toothless.
I have the perception that the SEC has never arrested anyone for fraud regarding selling a worthless asset and certainly not in 2008. That could be wrong, but, IF there was clear law on the books, then at least I could be outraged at one of my own representatives and make change: The SEC? I can do nothing to effect change. They all appear to be bought completely off by banks.
Now? Congress points to the SEC. The SEC points to Congress. And Banks? They will sell you anything you are dumb enough to buy.
I don't think your analogy with Justice Jackson is a good parallel.
All that you say could be correct in that an intelligible interest is rather broadly defined as something that is (paraphrased) reasonable, just, in the public interest or necessary. And if fraudulence or violation of these words cannot be proven, then it is not enforceable. In the case you mention, if someone willingly buys something knowing it has no value, that is not fraud. But if a value is represented, then it is.
More to the point, though, that is not the legal principle being attacked by this ruling. This ruling is saying that the executive branch does not have the authority to establish criteria to implement the law, i.e., to determine the intelligible interest. That is a common legislative approach to allow for changes over time, which cause struggles when the world changes such as with the internet bringing up new questions about privacy, etc.
Also Justice Jackson was referring not to definition of a crime, but to the penalty prescribed once a verdict of guilty has been reached. There is a question of specificity: Where a law specifies a penalty, that penalty should be enforced. Where the law does not specify a penalty, or provides a range of penalties, then judicial discretion is allowed to consider other factors. That discretion is what Justice Jackson was referring to.
"This ruling is saying that the executive branch does not have the authority to establish criteria to implement the law".
I will add "through the SEC".
Having added that I will add this: So, here we see the problem. It is so totally legal to sell worthless assets in America, as there is no law against it, that even the FEDERAL RESERVE bought worthless bank assets in 2008 (along with the rest of the world).
This is the problem with the SEC doing the regulating without Congressional laws making what is illegal clear.
The SEC can do nothing without clear laws. Or, alternatively, clear laws make the SEC not needed. Just have the sheriff show up at JP Morgan and arrest Jimmy Dimon and toss him in jail after reading his rights.
Why are we not doing that already? Is it because nobody in Congress has the guts to write such laws? They want to hide behind the SEC?
Sandy, I think special interests have such strong influence on writing legislation that they are able to block substantive reform. Another casualty is the loss of compromise that actually moves towards a goal; it has been replaced by trading favors that do little to improve things other than the enhancement of power. This happens within each party as well as across the aisle. Witness the outsized influence of Manchin...
I think we need to look at the game plan on the right to define everything. All of what you describe that made the legislative body work is irrelevant when the end goal is to destroy the democracy.
Billions of dollars were paid in settlements from litigation over the bond fraud of 2008; at least one person was jailed for falsifying the value of the bonds he sold. The Fed was taken in like everyone else. That speaks more to the cozy relationship that grew like topsy of packaging mortgages with a percentage of tolerance for risky loans . That is no cozier than the relationship between large corporations and Congressional campaigns, or lobbyists and members of Congress. The problem in 2008 is not with who was regulating but that no one was regulating with common sense. If the industry relaxed loan standards to meet investment for formerly red-lined districts or populations, then who should have been watching the percentage of risky loans being packaged and sold? The banks wanted to shed those loans; investors wanted the return on the loans without the hassle of initiating them; etc. So, was analyzing the bonds legislative? No, it was executive. Trust was betrayed.
" The problem in 2008 is not with who was regulating but that no one was regulating with common sense."
OK, I will agree with this sentence, however, with no clear law on the books, written by Congress, the above sentence can be written.
WITH a clear law on the books, the above sentence, I think, would read: Americans watched as our government permitted banks to sell worthless assets illegally and even the government decided to purchase some to shore up their buddies in the banks.
No clear laws enforced by a toothless, powerless SEC KEM?
Count me out of supporting that. I think that, maybe, by disallowing the SEC to make law outside of Congress, it helps to spotlight corruption in Congress when it occurs.
Right now? Congress can point at the SEC. SEC can point at the Congress.
And,? Obama can make a ton of money on bank speeches after 8 years of supporting bailing banks out, without any law sayng that buying those assets is illegal, at the expense of the American people.
I'm glad we agree on something! Whether or not Congress would show any more common sense is debatable, I think. And whether or not they would want to do so, or simply kick the can down the road, is also debatable. But I do wonder if your comments are getting rather far afield of the ruling itself about separation of powers and the feasibility of the concept of intelligible principle. Your comments about Obama certainly are, IMO.
KEM, I appreciated your comments with reference to an understanding of the Jarkesy v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n decision in finding the SEC ALJs unconstitutional and the effects of this decision. I tend to look to lawyers and other experts in constitutional law to understand a case such as this one. I am curious to know what you think of the following from a member of the Law Professors Blog Network. Of course, all other members of the constitutional law knowledge class, your analysis is called upon. Thank you.
Fifth Circuit Finds SEC ALJs Unconstitutional
'The Fifth Circuit recently decided Jarkesy v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, No. 20-61007, 2022 WL 1563613, at *1 (5th Cir. May 18, 2022). The case has significant implications for the SEC's use of administrative law judges (ALJs). The majority opinion was written by Judge Elrod and joined by Judge Oldham. Judge Davis penned a dissent. The majority issued three holdings:'
'We hold that: (1) the SEC's in-house adjudication of Petitioners' case violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial; (2) Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC by failing to provide an intelligible principle by which the SEC would exercise the delegated power, in violation of Article I's vesting of “all” legislative power in Congress; and (3) statutory removal restrictions on SEC ALJs violate the Take Care Clause of Article II.'
'The case involved two hedge funds founded by Jaresky, an investor, businessman, and conservative radio host. The SEC alleged that Jaresky: (i) misrepresented the identity of the prime broker and auditor; (ii) misrepresented the funds' investment parameters and safeguards; and (iii) overvalued the funds' assets to increase the fees collected. After an evidentiary hearing, an SEC ALJ found that the funds had committed securities fraud. Jaresky's defended by raising constitutional challenges to administrative adjudication, among other things.'
'Although his arguments were rejected by the Commission, the Fifth Circuit embraced them. I'll overview them briefly in turn before turning to broader context and the long term perspective.'
'7th Amendment Right to a Jury Trial'
'The Fifth Circuit concluded administrative adjudication was unconstitutional "because the SEC's enforcement action is akin to traditional actions at law to which the jury-trial right attaches. And Congress, or an agency acting pursuant to congressional authorization, cannot assign the adjudication of such claims to an agency because such claims do not concern public rights alone." As I read the opinion, the Fifth Circuit's seems to find that a right to a jury trial attaches to statutory and administrative claims which significantly overlap with common law claims. This may not be the only reading and I welcome any thoughts in the comments about the scope of this reasoning.'
'There are some immediate implications from this. If applied more broadly, this reasoning might gut much administrative adjudication outside the SEC as well. This holding does not turn on anything unique to the SEC. This would also likely significantly shift enforcement actions to federal court.'
And a PS--how can both "the SEC doesn't have the right to administer this law" and "the [SEC] must take care in the administration of this law" both be true? It seems to me that this combination is a matter of throwing various arguments against the wall to see which one sticks.
Turning over the democratic Rule of Law, which has been underway for sometime and part of the country's history. is one of the primary threats to democracy here. I seek to see this decision put in that context. If and when I find sources and organizations devoted to addressing this area, I will post you and would appreciate sources and contacts you can recommend. Thank you, KEM.
The basic question, I think, is whether agency regulations developed to administer a law constitute "legislative activity" by that agency. Since agencies are under the Executive branch of government, they cannot legislate (the "non delegation" argument espoused by conservatives), that is the job of Congress. The common sense issue is how can agencies *function* without enforcing laws, or, do laws without administration delegated to to an agency have any effect? So the question, such as it is, is whether administration is legislative or executive. I just did a quick search and this seems to be a good explanation. https://ballotpedia.org/Nondelegation_doctrine //.
Since laws without administration or enforcement are useless, that is the threat to democracy. Imagine if the DOJ could not prosecute, for example...Since judicial decisions are supposed to be founded on precedent, application of this doctrine could have a domino effect. It is also interesting to note that even returning to this argument from 80-some years ago is ignoring the precedents set in the last century, and defies one of the major premises of the courtroom. A parallel is the potential over-turning of Roe, which ignores 50 years of accepted Constitutional law.
I am not a lawyer. With many lawyers in the family, I was simply raised to believe that the application of law is a matter of logic and common sense. In this day and age, I would add "and not a matter of personal philosophy or beliefs." I think the question regarding #1 is whether or not fraudulent presentation of a hedge fund's personnel, safeguards, and values is a matter of public interest under the intelligible principle doctrine. I believe that it is, because the offering was made not just to one person, but to many. The question regarding #2 is what we have been debating regarding the right of the executive branch to set guidelines for application of laws that Congress passes without such specificity. #3 says the SEC was somehow deficient in its administration of the law, which to me seems to be a round robin type of argument vis a vis #2. That is, how can it be deficient when standards were not present? I really don't see how the SEC was deficient, when it is being argued that it was overreaching (again, overreaching what?). And the "take care" clause simply means that the President (or in this case, his agency) needs to enforce all laws whether he / she agrees with the law or not. I don't see the application here, although perhaps it is in the complete opinion.
Your statement: "It is Congress and the President representing our interests (or not as was the case in 2008)." Our interests were protected in 2008. The economy was teetering over a cliff. I am guessing people may not have liked their methods but have taken for granted that our economic system was salvaged. Once again the Democrats sweep in and clean up the Republican messes and get blamed for it.
For example, in 1929 when the economy crashed the "financial instruments" used to "soft land" the economy in 2008 were not utilized and as a result, the dead economy highlighted to Americans who exactly was to blame for the mess for many years - Republicans.
It took another 40 years before people forgot and started electing Republicans again.
In 2008, had the government not used experimental methods, the total results of which are still unknown, the economy would have been dead for at least 5 years.
Do you think Trump would have had half a chance to win an election if everyone still remembered 8 years of Republican Bush II's dead economy?
Not hardly. So, I would say, BANK interests were protected and the story was our interests were protected as cover.
It is not clear at all, to me, that my own, or the people of this country's interest was protected.
However, I understand that the common thinking/lore is that all of the financial experimentation helped.
With $5 Trillion of those worthless Mortgage backed "securities" STILL on the books at the Fed Barbara? Who knows what will happen.
Now, we also have another $5 Trillion dollars of ETF's purchased during the Pandemic by the Fed. $10 Trillion off the books spending that we did not authorize, we do not understand and we do not know the consequences.
Mike S upstateNY, I understand your engineering perspective but most of existence falls in the grey areas. For example, mathematical models are approximations of reality. The Wharton Econometric Model was world renowned many years ago when I was at the school, but it was far from perfect.
Legislators can not precisely specify every facet of every decision an engineer or judge might face. That would require the legislature to engineer every project or every criminal approach that might ever be. It would eliminate invention. I know for a fact that engineering regulations set standards, not full designs.
Stanley. Much of engineering is not math models, but, that is the cool stuff, I agree.
More of engineering is just a slog of hard work where one has to pay attention and get the details right and then check again to make sure. THEN, be PRESENT when the project starts.
So, I am extending not a math model but an entire rigorous process.
I believe that Congress should write clear laws. Without those clear laws then 2008 can happen where the SEC does absolutely NOTHING after a bunch of crooks sell assets they knew were worthless to everyone.
The SEC is tootless already. Evidence of that toothless nature of the SEC abounds, not the least of which is not a single arrest in 2008.
Is that what you want? Because, that is not what I want. I want responsible government to write responsible laws that are clear enough to arrest crooks that do something besides rob a grocery store of a loaf of bread and go to jail.
Thank you so much Mike, for your perspective. "...not the least of which is not a single arrest in 2008" brings to mind the film "The Big Short" and book of the same name written by Michael Lewis. Well worth viewing/reading. In addition to the basic lack of legal AND moral accountability underscored by the film and book, your comments serve as a poignant reminder that as is the case with so many issues, a letter to our elected representatives is worth the time and effort.
My kids made me watch the "Big Short" one evening. I did not want to because I had already, long before, sorted out what happened through various reading methods.
Watching someone make big money on the lack of clear laws in the United States where selling worthless junk is relevant?
“ More of engineering is just a slog of hard work where one has to pay attention and get the details right and then check again to make sure. THEN, be PRESENT when the project starts.”
If we substitute “legislating” for “engineering” in this statement this entire discussion collapses. Few if any legislators have the education or mindset of a good engineer.
In the US, we have a system of common law, whereby precedent (stare decisis) and judicial rulings are used to determine legality, as opposed to a civil law system, whereby statutes and ordinances determine legality. The regulations imposed by the executive branch, to fulfill laws created by the legislative branch, seem to me to fall under this category of precedent, and declaring that unconstitutional seems cataclysmic to me. The SEC decision cited here would provide the precedent to dismantle our entire system of regulation. Yikes.
My anecdotal experience of a country with a civil law system is that laws must be written with great specificity, and apply only to situations which match those described in the law, and that therefore, there are many, many more laws on the books, which can be unwieldy. What you suggest, Mike, seems to me to fall more under this civil law ideal. While we, here in the US, allow Congress to delegate that power to the executive branch. Regulations are easier to change than laws, and hopefully that gets done by experts. When it works, this seems a better system to me.
I am wending my way through "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer. It is shocking that corporations and independently wealthy people (usually white men) manage our government to their liking. Your use of a corporate CEO as illustration fits very well. These are the guys in charge of pretty much everything. Also, it's a one way assault as corporations rarely have to listen to "the people," as government presumably has to.
Beware of "Foundations" another word for manipulation of money and politics. Extraordinary wealth has managed not only our government and its branches, but our religious, educational, and social environments. Issues and causes are distractants and are meant to demolish laws. Ultimately, it all means to serve one purpose; corporate wealth and less taxation. Corporations (actually, their CEOs and top officers) are blinkered because they have entrenched beliefs they are deserving, superior, and on the side of might and right. Since Reagan, they have been dismantling the New Deal and empowering the Republican party. (My rephrasing from the book.)
I haven’t ever gotten through that book yet and I’ve owned it for 2 years now. I found myself so frustrated that I, personally, cannot do anything to stop these filthy rich criminals.
Yeah, the decision gets appealed - to the court that wants to overthrow the government.
If there isn't some way to get enough Senators to allow a court expansion - which given the way the Senate works is close to impossible now - the country is a ship headed for the rocks. The useful (i.e. blue) states will take to the lifeboats in the form of secession, leaving the rest to sink when their blue state tax payment welfare gets cut off.
We are going to do the same. We had our primary election in Oregon Tuesday and I was thinking that it is time to make a list for donations both here and across the country. As an aside we are still waiting for the results on Schrader's fate. His opponent is ahead, but... The county clerk in Clackastan (Clackamus County) knew two weeks before that there was a printing problem, but didn't do enough to take care of that. I don't know how long it was take because they are taking the original ballot (two people, one from each party doing this) and marking a new ballot that can fed into the machine. The county has offered other county workers to help. We do have a three woman governor's race now. Flannel shirt crypto financed Carrick Flynn lost and we have a Latina woman as the D candidate for the new CD six.
It surged at the last minute....I want to say around 30 percent or so which is miserable, but better than the 10 percent or so we were seeing late in the game. Lots came in the mail because the ballot only had to be postmarked on the 18th, so could arrive the next day. Drop boxes saw lots of last minute activity too. We voted the weekend after we got the ballots. Had to take the ballots to the post office as someone ripped the front off our community mail box. It is finally fixed and we got our keys just this week.
You might argue that the same Senate blockade that would preclude a Supreme Court expansion might also preclude a number-of-states expansion (specifically the addition of Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, maybe New York City, and *perhaps* some Pacific Islands); however, I think that were R states faced with the cutting off of the McConnell-states’ trough (and the prospect of unwinnable civil war) versus allowing an expansion of the country not the court, most would accede, changing the playing field radically while preserving the face they apparently need to save above all else.
Agree 100%, Laura. Also about expansion of state rights to territories….especially Puerto Rico and DC.
And you are on target about Sen McConnell. He continues to be more in the position of between a rock and a hard place. I cannot remember a President or elected official that created circumstance that makes it so difficult to walk the political high wire “do what I say, not what I do”. I swear, every time I watch McConnell speak, there is a more vacuous attitude swirling around him.
If anyone wants to throw a few $$$ to Cheri Beasley here in NC running for Sen Burr’s Senate seat, I’m sure she’d appreciate it. Check her out. She’s a wonderful candidate 💛.
TC, I can't leave the US like some readers here have done, but I confess to sometimes wishing exactly what you mention. I got so frustrated with the anti-maskers and anti-vax people that I would think, OKAY then, just do what you want and die! But, as a retired healthcare worker, I knew that we MUST attempt to protect the vulnerable. And my poor, vulnerable vaxed & boosted brother (who had not left his senior living facility room in over a year)--COVID came to visit and took him this past January. This pandemic has to end at some point (when, Lord knows!) and I wish this madness in the GQP would end (but I am doubtful) but in either case, I will NOT forget which party is responsible for the mess this country is in. And this never-before-vote-straight-ticket voter will act accordingly.
Thanks Ally. I'd written about it on here prior. He was in the moderate stages of dementia. He was sinking but nowhere near death. He had aphasia so he couldn't communicate at all. In a way, his suffering was ended. I was too afraid to visit him at the end (I was with him the day before he was diagnosed and knew something was wrong, but he couldn't tell me, so I was in isolation anyhow) I am just sad that his adult kids had to gown, mask and face shield to be with him, but at least, they were allowed to be with him. Many, if not most, had to say goodbye via phone.
Ahh, I had not made that connection. We are going through the dementia drama with my father-in-law right now. There are literally no resources for him in a 300 mile radius. We’ve had 2 potential placements fall through this week; have a decision coming on a third today.
I feel for you. My brother was in Assisted LIving, when he went, his aphasia was bad but he still had a small (very) vocabulary. He was able to go to p/t there, speech therapy, to the dining room (he had a key chain with tags of photos of what he wanted to eat, as the words often failed him). Three months later, COVID hit. For many months, no visitors at all were allowed. It was IMPOSSIBLE to explain to him, he had little verbal comprehension. I didn't see him for a year. The residents stayed in their rooms, and his decline sped up. By the time I was vaxed and could visit, he could say single words, sometimes a sentence fragment. I'd bring him favorite meals (the food there was not awful, but not appetizing, and he couldn't fill out forms to order anything. They were short staffed, nobody to help him) His dementia seemed to be increasing but they would not transfer him into their dementia unit as "he isn't an escape risk." !!!!!!!!!!!!! OH, girl, I have sooooo many stories.
Long story short, he was a veteran and with some help, my niece got him on hospice (pulling a few strings and a kind hospice RN who knew how to word things) which helped tremendously. The staff at the place said he was belligerent and just left him alone--he was belligerent because he didn't understand words and the staff wasn't trained to handle him.
I digress. It was heartbreaking, the number of times I yelled at the staff (NOT MY PERSONALITY) or left sobbing.......
The "human warehousing" of the elderly in this country is appalling! I hope you can find a placement. I can totally believe you have to go outside of 300 miles, and realistically, how often can you and/or your wife then travel that far to go check on him? I wish that my brother could have aged at home or with family, but sometimes that is just not possible for the care that our loved ones require.
Ally, that’s hard too. I am so very sorry. My dad had had dementia and my mom kept him at home. It took a toll on her life too. My sister and I tried to intervene, get help for her to take care of him. She wouldn’t hear of it. He passed away a year after their 50th anniversary, in 1997. She lived until January 2006, brain fully intact but the body couldn’t keep up. My best to you and your partner also.
Miselle, I am sorry for the loss of your brother. I will also vote the straight Democratic ticket (have done for years now). Even though I am not sure it will really help.
I'm so sorry to hear that about your brother. I wonder which anti-vax scumbag among those charged with his care who wouldn't take care was responsible for the death.
Oh Miselle, so painful to hear about your brother’s loss. I too, lost my best friend of 47 years last November. Not to Covid but to cancer. It hurts. Thank you for giving of yourself as a healthcare worker. One of the most difficult jobs these days. My best to you.
Biden must follow FDR’s threat to expand the Court to iron out these discrepancies. Wish he had proposed this sooner but good grief, the man has a multitude of problems on his plate!!
FDR’s threat of court expansion worked then, but I think we are in more danger than the 1930’s. The house and senate must maintain majorities to maintain the balance of our system. SCOTUS must be expanded to even have an appearance of balance. Are we heading to the deep waters in the fight against the one party authoritarian state?
The Republicans’ voting against funding the federal government’s buying of foreign baby formula shows that, once again, it’s not about the babies. It’s all about Republican Party power and making President Biden look ineffectual.
The nondelegation issue is chilling. The chaos of making Congress set up committees to handle everything that the current federal departments handle would help prove Putin’s contention that democracies are too inefficient. I had preferred the imposition of 18 year term limits on SCOTUS rather than increasing the number of judges, but that might move too slowly to avoid the crazy thinking that seems to go along with being recommended by the Federalist Society.
Mary, in reference to your first paragraph, I'm trying to explain this to my cousin who is unaware of what she is voting for (or against). How could they vote against something like that but at the same time be pushing to end Roe vs. Wade? Apparently they could care less if those unborn babies have no formula to survive when they enter this world. As long as they get their way. It makes me sick. How do they even sleep at night?
That’s why I said that it wasn’t about the babies, any more than the abortion legislation is about them. If it were about making abortions rare, they’d go after the root cause—fertility—and offer free contraception including vasectomies and tubal ligations. If it were about the babies, they’d offer programs to make the lives of unaborted babies decent lives by making sure that they have enough good food to eat, a decent place to live, good schools, childcare that adds to their lives, etc. As I said, if it were about the babies instead of being designed to make fertile female workers an employment liability once again because they “could get pregnant at any time” (an excuse used to discriminate in the years before dependable reproductive healthcare and legal contraception).
Vasectomies can be reversed so tell all young men that the rule of law shall be they get a vasectomy at birth. Also take away the right of Viagra for men when they get older.
Jeanne, my feelings exactly. No food for the babies brought to "life", those same babies whose pre-birth lives were threatened by Roe, begs the question what are they thinking there in DC?
Imagine a future for all the babies born to minorities who cannot be cared for by the families they're born into, being given up to child rearing organizations. I'm afraid America will warehouse these children like Ceausescu did in Romania. Shameful.
Hie, Matt, With my wicked and generally inappropriate sense of humor, I would be with you under any other circumstances than, sadly, the ones we're in. I've watched in dismay as these determined, committed men have planned and executed one of the most horrifying coups in a democratic country that I could even have imagined. Their positions might well be absurd by any known standards of reason, but they aren't aiming for reason. They're entirely interested in power, and they're good at it--because they aren't going to war; they're not pulling out their revolvers. They are pulling in the crazies like the Christian Dominionists, the ideologues like Mike Pence, the infantile sociopaths like Trump, and turning them loose. I don't think the Federalists give a darn about any of the current issues stirring up so much heat. They are soul-less SOB's and they are, IMHO, dangerous. Sorry to be such a downer but of all the players these guys scare me the most--with the possible exception of Amy CB--and she's a Federalist pick.
Matt Fulkerson, hehehe, wouldn’t it be just a riot to interrupt every conversation with facts? With hard truths? With common sense? Made me laugh out loud. Would be fun!!
No, not if the court itself ruled that current members are grandfathered under current standards. No one wants more than me to see Thomas go. It will take time and a lot of suffering but I do think the size of the court and term limits will happen in my children's life time.
Aren’t there currently 12 judicial circuits in the US? Hasn’t the Court at times expanded to keep up with the number of judicial circuits? It seems to me that 9 is way too small a number of people to adjudicate matters for a nation of 330 million people.
The Supreme Court and some of the lesser court bring to mind a phalanx of rumbling bulldozers and cranes with wrecking balls, engines spewing diesel smoke, surrounding our institutions. Any minute now they're going to level everything. And what will be left other than chaos?
Two things off these frightening topics. I have a HUGE list of all things President Biden has accomplised if anyone wants them to use against those who contine to say he's done nothing. Email me at gaileegailee@gmail.com. 2nd. I am receiving many emails with John Fetterman in the subject line asking for donations for John. When I check the sender it is someone else and the donation will be split between John and the person sending the email. This includes Chuck Schumer. I am going to o ly give directly to those candidates so my donations are not diluted.
I respond only when it's a reminder of someone I want to support. I'm a dual US citizen (born there) and live in Canada, so have to give my Passport number for Federal candidates, and an actual photograph of my passport for others, like the race for Governor of Georgia.
Thank you Gailee. Our mailboxes are overflowing with asks daily, even if we donated yesterday. Connecting the dots takes more than a PhD. We need a microscope. And as yet an unpatented corruption meter. In this case it’s not only the repugs. Thanks to the courts. And the laws that do not protect Democracy or the people.
What’s amazing is that 500 isn’t an exaggeration. Hope you’re more organized than I am and delete quickly. I’m not good at cleaning out. Living on overload.
Thank you. Impressive list and wouldn’t it be more than helpful if the press published a weekly checklist? That list is a model for all elected officials. What is their job and what exactly are they accomplishing? Have they made campaign promises they have fulfilled? And what are their promises ? Unfortunately we watched TFG fulfill many of his promises. And he made sure his followers knew. And know.
It is an impressive list isn't it. It is things like this list that tells me all is not over. We are definitely in a fight for our Democracy but good and solid things are still being done.
I had that happen with Tim Kaine. Enough complained that the donations were rerouted to the candidate he was supporting. I now only donate directly to the candidate I support.
Right! We shouldn't even have to be donating any money to our elected representatives to do the jobs we elected them to do. In any other country that same giving money to politicians would be called illegal: "GRAFT, CORRUPTION, BRIBERY, EXTORTION, AND NEPOTISM, CHARACTERIZED BY THE SUBORDINATION OF PUBLIC INTERESTS TO PRIVATE AIMS AND VIOLATIONS OF THE NORMS OF DUTY AND WELFARE, ACCOMPANIED BY SECRECY, BETRAYAL, DECEPTION AND A CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR ANY CONSEQUENCES SUFFERED BY THE PUBLIC.
John, I have rarely seen it stated as clearly as your opening sentence. Good grief! Is there any area of our culture that isn't the laughing-stock of the world?
Absolutely! Our donations are the “legal” contributions to candidates. And then there are the other “legal” corporate and high tax bracket tax deductible “donations” that buy their candidates.
Gailee, I feel the same way about solicitations that are split between two or more candidates. I always contribute directly to the persons I choose to support.
How can Republicans in Congress be opposed to appropriating some money to solve the apparent shortage of baby formula? Simple, they think that extending the problem will harm the Democrats more than the Republicans. But isn't this an instructive example of the much noted aversion of Republicans to do anything at all for the benefit of families with children, after insisting that all zygotes be raised to full personhood?
Non delegation. Sounds like 2008 on steroids with the accompanying recession because no one was checking financial institutions shenanigans of greed. Do we have to have a 1929 crash in this century since we seem to be repeating the major events of the first part of the twentieth century? Scary!
Exactly what they want. I remember the first time I read a Republican screed against FDR. I thought they had lost their minds. As CSD on Twitter said “they piss themselves every presidency, while we “tax and spend” libs have to buy new sheets.” History’s lessons are drowned out by propaganda…
Cathy, 2008 would have been 1929 except that the Fed bought $5 Trillion of the worthless assets from banks to keep them solvent.
That $5 Trillion of worthless assets is on the books at the Fed today. Still.
So, here we see the problem. It is so totally legal to sell worthless assets in America, as there is no law against it, that even the FEDERAL RESERVE bought those assets.
This is the problem with the SEC doing the regulating without Congressional laws making what is illegal clear.
The SEC can do nothing without clear laws. Or, alternatively, clear laws make the SEC not needed. Just have the sheriff show up at JP Morgan and arrest Jimmy Demon and toss him in jail after reading his rights.
Why are we not doing that already? Is it because nobody in Congress has the guts to write such laws? They want to hide behind the SEC?
In 2005, we bought our "dream home" using a "stated income, no doc" mortgage. 1% interest rate, adjustable after a year. We already had a home with a mortgage. The real estate market was hot and we knew we would sell the old place quickly. We thought of it as a "bridge loan". A mortgage "broker" sat at our kitchen table and asked us for our legal names and SS numbers. Then he got up and started to leave. I asked: "Don't you want to know what are income is? Our liabilities, loans???" He said: "Don't worry about it..I fill it in so it works for us."
We knew what were doing. We got our new home, sold the old one and paid off the crazy mortgage. We dodged a bullet. But millions of others were clueless and a couple of years later found themselves owing much more than their homes were worth.
So, I guess Federal banking regulations just might be a good idea, eh?
If the law wasn't repealed it was probably crippled by....
And then there is Mick and his dismantling of the Consumer Protection Bureau. How these puppets of the Oligarchs get away with this stuff is always and will always be stunning to me. Here was an agency that was created to protect the average American and the average American barely blinked an eye. There should have been protests and an enormous push back. But it was meh, meh as folks were still comfy in front of their big TVs and big phablets.
Great points, Mike. In our 1% rich world and Citizens United make corruption and bribery perfectly legal, I don't know where we find the solution to income disparity and citizenship disparity. We are going down a very dark rabbit hole.
The Fed should NOT have bought worthless assets. No. People, then, would have remembered what happens after 8 years of Republican shennaigans for 20 years instead of 2.
Cathy, 2008 highlights the problem with the SEC being in charge of "regulating".
Since there was no law on the books, it was legal to sell, worldwide, any worthless asset.
After the entire world economy crashed because banks had been selling known worthless assets worldwide, then, who was arrested?
Nobody. We need laws on the books that detail what is illegal, why it is illegal, what the sentencing guidelines for breaking the law is, and, then,
We need to send people to jail who break the law.
Right now? Anyone can do anything in America and nobody goes to jail.
UNLESS you are black and rob a 7-11 for a loaf of bread to feed your family. THEN, you get arrested and spend 10 years in prison. That law is on the books.
You have to read "On Corruption in America" by Sarah Chayes. You won't believe how Wall Street runs the SEC. She describes the networks of complicity in detail.
Part of the reason there is no regulation is we have the Foxes guarding the chicken coop of Congress. I would also argue that our personal power politicians know little about what kind of regulation the finance industry needs. .. On your last statement: One of the commentators on MSNBC talked about how a white kid that just killed ten black people with the gun still in his hands got talked into lowering the gun and being arrested. Do you think they would have given any black kid that chance?
No, the black kid would’ve been shot hundreds of times. But you mention the foxes around the Congress chicken coop and i immediately saw Murdoch and ilk!
What a frightening letter. Here are a series of events that demonstrate to Americans that the GQP won't support even the most basic legislation - because it came from a Democratic leadership and Administration. This is not simply "politics". This is anti-American partisanship. Think about this. During a time where HUMAN BABIES are literally STARVING, 192 Republican Representatives voted against funding a solution for providing BABY formula. How does an elected official defend that?
Now I understand. Based on the issues in this letter, Republicans are pro life unless the baby needs to eat. Republicans are anti violence unless the violence is created by Neo Nazis and White Supremacists. And Republicans are pro American business even if they pollute, abuse their employees and sell dangerously contaminated products. And insider trading would be fine as well...
By the logic of the "non delegation theory", I guess we could save a lot of money by just disbanding our entire military structure! But we wouldn't do that, would we? Too many Republican pockets are lined with Federal defense dollars.
And now I understand what the Republican "platform" is. To create an America that is pure white and free to carry weapons. An America that has no central government to guarantee our human rights. An America run by Oligarchs - and yahoos with weapons. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Jasus Christ on a crutch! We seem to have developed a culture that is intent on committing kamikaze. We have. 1) global heating, 2) an energy crisis, 3) a population crisis, 4) an environmental crisis .. but hey, who gives a damn. And it's not just the US of A - we have Russia, Gulf States, China, etc, it's not a good look for the future - we are, it seems, intent of destroying our only planet. I put a lot of this down to the the massive urbanisation of our populations. "Green trees? - oh yes, I think I've seen them in pictures". "Honey, can you turn up the A/C - my ice cream is melting".
Love your first sentence, well, every sentence. And we la-de-Dah about sports, the Kardashians, and every inane thing the networks can devise. I will quote a world that is in my dreams, from the end of a show Murdoch Mysteries, Season 13, episode 11, setting, Toronto, ca 1910, “The future is unknown, but indicators abound as to what it might become. Wireless communication portends the instantaneous dissemination of knowledge from all parts of the world. Knowledge will end prejudice, demagogues will no longer flourish, lies and misinformation will disappear. The matters and crises that shake us all will be dealt with intelligently and plausibly. All of humanity will be able to embrace their better selves. At the end of the 20th century and beyond, truth and knowledge will prevail.” Blew that one, didn’t we?
Jeri, I vote for that world. Oh, that’s another “virtual” idea isn’t it? Meanwhile, we watch the dismantling of Democracy thanks to courts and laws run by autocrats, big money and repugs, government for the people in name only.
It would all work quite well were there not such a thing as greed manifest as the profit motive and the reliable emergence of individuals seeking power at any cost.
Normal behaviour in kindergarten. And if someone crosses you, you stick out your lower lip, scream insults, and hit them. And lie to get out of trouble.
...and then when you're older, buy a gun and blow them away. It seems guns are used to settle all disputes now, no matter how trivial. Somebody cut you off? Blow them away. Somebody even looks at you in a way you don't like? Blow then away. Somebody has something you want? Blow them away and take it. It's rampant and getting worse. Small wonder I don't want to set foot outside my door anymore. I dreamily reflect still of the life I had in Holland and at times WISH I was back there...
Thanks, Jeri ! Murdoch Mysteries is the best and most brilliant show on the telly (that I've seen)! The writing, the storylines, the subtle humour, the history, and the Canadiana of it all!
As Mike S. days: Americans are the problem. We are so hooked into both the pablum of sports/entertainment AND the hateful rhetoric of politics that show the failure to teach critical thinking and actual history is going to be the destruction of thin democracy.
So, 203 Republicans in Congress voted against having a task force that would share information across government agencies to combat domestic terrorism by white supremacists and Nazis. Not five or ten right wing radical racists voted against this, 203 Republicans did. They did so after yet ANOTHER shooting by a white supremacist. I have a different replacement theory, meaning these 203 Republicans need to be replaced in Congress.
If Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1934, with certain regulatory responsibilities, how can a court, under any legal theory whatsoever, say that they (Congress) had no authority to do that? Clearly this is a case where the right-wing business elite is pushing to dismantle all regulation because it is oppressive to their capitalistic freedom.
Regarding the SEC: I watched as a bunch of crooks sold worthless "mortgage backed" securities as "derivatives" that they knew were worthless, to investors worldwide, and not backed by any assets in 2007 and 2008. The SEC ended up doing nothing. Not one arrest.
When the entire scheme came apart and everyone who had bet against the scheme by shorting banks brought the entire world economy down?
The SEC arrested ONE person (not for bank fraud or mortgage securities fraud but for insider trading). Martha Stewart. For insider trading unrelated to mortgage fraud.
Not one of the perpetrators of the fake mortgage backed securities was arrested. Not one.
Worse, the government stepped in with both direct payments to banks and the Fed began buying, for the first time in history, the worthless mortgage bonds off the books of the banks, the first time the Fed have ever printed money to buy a fake asset that was worthless. Or even a good asset.
What's my point you ask?
The SEC is already toothless and useless. Nobody on Wall Street is worried about that agency and nobody should be.
I think the executive branch, through the SEC, should regulate business and should arrest criminals.
But, nobody is regulating anything up in DC.
I love Obama but do you know to whom his first $400,000 speech was after 8 years of him using the Fed to give them money by buying mortgage backed securities??
Yep. A Bank.
Everyone, it is already all messed up in the regulatory domain. Companies pay off members of the regulatory agencies to get what they want.
The final amount of mortgage backed securities bought by the Fed? Five Trillion Dollars.
Those are mostly STILL on the Fed's books. Today. Owned by, yes, you and me.
They are still worthless.
So, I am not losing any sleep about an agency that is already doing nothing doing more of nothing.
What if more of that money had been pumped into the economy - through making whole the people who were sold scam mortgages? Sure, there would have been major bank failures. So what? There would be new ones popping up left and right. Money lending is a very juicy enterprise. And some old banks would have filed Chapter 11 and keep scamming along.
I am a fan of Obama on a character level. But he embraced establishment economics to the detriment of the average citizen. If ever there had been a chance to rebuild our nations financial systems, it was in 2009. Instead we went back to the same poisoned well.
Ha Ha. I grew up in a I like Ike family. I love your comment for its incisive humor. Obama was hamstrung by McConnell. And he tried too hard to unite. The radical right was dedicated to his destruction. Obama was a bit naive.
President Biden, too, was naive in his belief that the current-day Republicans would embrace the bipartisanship he remembered from his time in the Senate decades ago.
"Since 2019, a majority of the current Supreme Court has expressed interest in revitalizing the nondelegation doctrine, which prohibits Congress from delegating any of its lawmaking power to regulatory agencies in the executive branch. Unfortunately, relying on a highly deferential application of this constitutional principle, the Court has not invoked the nondelegation doctrine to strike down a statute since 1935. That contributed to broad delegations of rulemaking power to regulatory agencies in the decades that followed. A reinvigoration of the nondelegation doctrine, accordingly, has the potential to restrict the growth and power of these agencies, better known today as the 'administrative state.'"
Well, the two Trojan Horses had better STFU when Democrats try to expand the SC, or am I living in dream land. Republicans have smelled blood and they will stop at NOTHING to destroy our current government and bring back the business (Repub) rule that brought us every recession in the last 100+ years. Every one.
One must surely ask, then, what exactly the "executive branch" is supposed to "execute," and how. Using a corporation as a example, the CEO is expected to implement directives from the Board of Directors who have been elected by the stockholders. The Board is not responsible for implementation, the CEO is.
While some legislation is poorly written, I think it is impossible as well as unwise to try to write all details of implementation into every legislation. The alternatives are placing implementation within Congress, which defies the Constitution, or not implementing any laws that are passed, which makes government by law irrelevant, replacing reason and equality with "might makes right." Fearful news from this decision if it is allowed to stand.
KEM, I am sure you listened carefully to Judge Ketanji Jackson's interview with Congress where the Republican side tried to highlight her "soft on child sexual abuse" sentencing. Nevermind she was within 70% of all like rulings by other judges......
She repeatedly used the specific guidance that was provided in a Congressional law to support her approach. She also repeatedly said that if different or more clear guidance in the law had been available it would have been helpful and she certainly would have followed that guidance.
I think, as an engineer having been thorough and detail oriented (which is work) for my career of successful project outcomes that: IF Congress is going to write a law, the law should detail at some reasonable level what the law is, how it should be enforced, and what breaking that law looks like and what sentencing, at a high level, should be applied.
Then, when everyone in America sees some big crime and fraud like the 2008 Bank Mortgage Fraud crash where nobody went to jail, we don't blame the SEC for doing absolutely nothing.
Instead......
We should blame Congress and the President when a bunch of crooks crash the economy selling a bunch of worthless securities IF there is a law on the books that says that is illegal. If there is no law on the books saying it is illegal to sell, worldwide, a known worthless security, then, well, I won't mind if nobody is arrested. It is legal. Even I can do it.
It is Congress and the President representing our interests (or not as was the case in 2008).
I think it is still legal to sell worthless assets to anyone anywhere in America even today. So, I am not too excited about the SEC since they already appear to me as toothless.
I have the perception that the SEC has never arrested anyone for fraud regarding selling a worthless asset and certainly not in 2008. That could be wrong, but, IF there was clear law on the books, then at least I could be outraged at one of my own representatives and make change: The SEC? I can do nothing to effect change. They all appear to be bought completely off by banks.
Now? Congress points to the SEC. The SEC points to Congress. And Banks? They will sell you anything you are dumb enough to buy.
I don't think your analogy with Justice Jackson is a good parallel.
All that you say could be correct in that an intelligible interest is rather broadly defined as something that is (paraphrased) reasonable, just, in the public interest or necessary. And if fraudulence or violation of these words cannot be proven, then it is not enforceable. In the case you mention, if someone willingly buys something knowing it has no value, that is not fraud. But if a value is represented, then it is.
More to the point, though, that is not the legal principle being attacked by this ruling. This ruling is saying that the executive branch does not have the authority to establish criteria to implement the law, i.e., to determine the intelligible interest. That is a common legislative approach to allow for changes over time, which cause struggles when the world changes such as with the internet bringing up new questions about privacy, etc.
Also Justice Jackson was referring not to definition of a crime, but to the penalty prescribed once a verdict of guilty has been reached. There is a question of specificity: Where a law specifies a penalty, that penalty should be enforced. Where the law does not specify a penalty, or provides a range of penalties, then judicial discretion is allowed to consider other factors. That discretion is what Justice Jackson was referring to.
"This ruling is saying that the executive branch does not have the authority to establish criteria to implement the law".
I will add "through the SEC".
Having added that I will add this: So, here we see the problem. It is so totally legal to sell worthless assets in America, as there is no law against it, that even the FEDERAL RESERVE bought worthless bank assets in 2008 (along with the rest of the world).
This is the problem with the SEC doing the regulating without Congressional laws making what is illegal clear.
The SEC can do nothing without clear laws. Or, alternatively, clear laws make the SEC not needed. Just have the sheriff show up at JP Morgan and arrest Jimmy Dimon and toss him in jail after reading his rights.
Why are we not doing that already? Is it because nobody in Congress has the guts to write such laws? They want to hide behind the SEC?
Or it is that Congress is unable to pass anything of consequence because of the minority’s stranglehold on the process.
Sandy, I think special interests have such strong influence on writing legislation that they are able to block substantive reform. Another casualty is the loss of compromise that actually moves towards a goal; it has been replaced by trading favors that do little to improve things other than the enhancement of power. This happens within each party as well as across the aisle. Witness the outsized influence of Manchin...
I think we need to look at the game plan on the right to define everything. All of what you describe that made the legislative body work is irrelevant when the end goal is to destroy the democracy.
KEM, and there we have the conundrum.
Democracy is not working in the USA, but, what would work?
Anything?
Certainly in the last 12 years that has been true.
Billions of dollars were paid in settlements from litigation over the bond fraud of 2008; at least one person was jailed for falsifying the value of the bonds he sold. The Fed was taken in like everyone else. That speaks more to the cozy relationship that grew like topsy of packaging mortgages with a percentage of tolerance for risky loans . That is no cozier than the relationship between large corporations and Congressional campaigns, or lobbyists and members of Congress. The problem in 2008 is not with who was regulating but that no one was regulating with common sense. If the industry relaxed loan standards to meet investment for formerly red-lined districts or populations, then who should have been watching the percentage of risky loans being packaged and sold? The banks wanted to shed those loans; investors wanted the return on the loans without the hassle of initiating them; etc. So, was analyzing the bonds legislative? No, it was executive. Trust was betrayed.
" The problem in 2008 is not with who was regulating but that no one was regulating with common sense."
OK, I will agree with this sentence, however, with no clear law on the books, written by Congress, the above sentence can be written.
WITH a clear law on the books, the above sentence, I think, would read: Americans watched as our government permitted banks to sell worthless assets illegally and even the government decided to purchase some to shore up their buddies in the banks.
No clear laws enforced by a toothless, powerless SEC KEM?
Count me out of supporting that. I think that, maybe, by disallowing the SEC to make law outside of Congress, it helps to spotlight corruption in Congress when it occurs.
Right now? Congress can point at the SEC. SEC can point at the Congress.
And,? Obama can make a ton of money on bank speeches after 8 years of supporting bailing banks out, without any law sayng that buying those assets is illegal, at the expense of the American people.
I'm glad we agree on something! Whether or not Congress would show any more common sense is debatable, I think. And whether or not they would want to do so, or simply kick the can down the road, is also debatable. But I do wonder if your comments are getting rather far afield of the ruling itself about separation of powers and the feasibility of the concept of intelligible principle. Your comments about Obama certainly are, IMO.
KEM, I appreciated your comments with reference to an understanding of the Jarkesy v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n decision in finding the SEC ALJs unconstitutional and the effects of this decision. I tend to look to lawyers and other experts in constitutional law to understand a case such as this one. I am curious to know what you think of the following from a member of the Law Professors Blog Network. Of course, all other members of the constitutional law knowledge class, your analysis is called upon. Thank you.
Fifth Circuit Finds SEC ALJs Unconstitutional
'The Fifth Circuit recently decided Jarkesy v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, No. 20-61007, 2022 WL 1563613, at *1 (5th Cir. May 18, 2022). The case has significant implications for the SEC's use of administrative law judges (ALJs). The majority opinion was written by Judge Elrod and joined by Judge Oldham. Judge Davis penned a dissent. The majority issued three holdings:'
'We hold that: (1) the SEC's in-house adjudication of Petitioners' case violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial; (2) Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC by failing to provide an intelligible principle by which the SEC would exercise the delegated power, in violation of Article I's vesting of “all” legislative power in Congress; and (3) statutory removal restrictions on SEC ALJs violate the Take Care Clause of Article II.'
'The case involved two hedge funds founded by Jaresky, an investor, businessman, and conservative radio host. The SEC alleged that Jaresky: (i) misrepresented the identity of the prime broker and auditor; (ii) misrepresented the funds' investment parameters and safeguards; and (iii) overvalued the funds' assets to increase the fees collected. After an evidentiary hearing, an SEC ALJ found that the funds had committed securities fraud. Jaresky's defended by raising constitutional challenges to administrative adjudication, among other things.'
'Although his arguments were rejected by the Commission, the Fifth Circuit embraced them. I'll overview them briefly in turn before turning to broader context and the long term perspective.'
'7th Amendment Right to a Jury Trial'
'The Fifth Circuit concluded administrative adjudication was unconstitutional "because the SEC's enforcement action is akin to traditional actions at law to which the jury-trial right attaches. And Congress, or an agency acting pursuant to congressional authorization, cannot assign the adjudication of such claims to an agency because such claims do not concern public rights alone." As I read the opinion, the Fifth Circuit's seems to find that a right to a jury trial attaches to statutory and administrative claims which significantly overlap with common law claims. This may not be the only reading and I welcome any thoughts in the comments about the scope of this reasoning.'
'There are some immediate implications from this. If applied more broadly, this reasoning might gut much administrative adjudication outside the SEC as well. This holding does not turn on anything unique to the SEC. This would also likely significantly shift enforcement actions to federal court.'
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/business_law/2022/05/fifth-circuit-finds-sec-aljs-unconstitutional.html
And a PS--how can both "the SEC doesn't have the right to administer this law" and "the [SEC] must take care in the administration of this law" both be true? It seems to me that this combination is a matter of throwing various arguments against the wall to see which one sticks.
Turning over the democratic Rule of Law, which has been underway for sometime and part of the country's history. is one of the primary threats to democracy here. I seek to see this decision put in that context. If and when I find sources and organizations devoted to addressing this area, I will post you and would appreciate sources and contacts you can recommend. Thank you, KEM.
The basic question, I think, is whether agency regulations developed to administer a law constitute "legislative activity" by that agency. Since agencies are under the Executive branch of government, they cannot legislate (the "non delegation" argument espoused by conservatives), that is the job of Congress. The common sense issue is how can agencies *function* without enforcing laws, or, do laws without administration delegated to to an agency have any effect? So the question, such as it is, is whether administration is legislative or executive. I just did a quick search and this seems to be a good explanation. https://ballotpedia.org/Nondelegation_doctrine //.
Since laws without administration or enforcement are useless, that is the threat to democracy. Imagine if the DOJ could not prosecute, for example...Since judicial decisions are supposed to be founded on precedent, application of this doctrine could have a domino effect. It is also interesting to note that even returning to this argument from 80-some years ago is ignoring the precedents set in the last century, and defies one of the major premises of the courtroom. A parallel is the potential over-turning of Roe, which ignores 50 years of accepted Constitutional law.
I am not a lawyer. With many lawyers in the family, I was simply raised to believe that the application of law is a matter of logic and common sense. In this day and age, I would add "and not a matter of personal philosophy or beliefs." I think the question regarding #1 is whether or not fraudulent presentation of a hedge fund's personnel, safeguards, and values is a matter of public interest under the intelligible principle doctrine. I believe that it is, because the offering was made not just to one person, but to many. The question regarding #2 is what we have been debating regarding the right of the executive branch to set guidelines for application of laws that Congress passes without such specificity. #3 says the SEC was somehow deficient in its administration of the law, which to me seems to be a round robin type of argument vis a vis #2. That is, how can it be deficient when standards were not present? I really don't see how the SEC was deficient, when it is being argued that it was overreaching (again, overreaching what?). And the "take care" clause simply means that the President (or in this case, his agency) needs to enforce all laws whether he / she agrees with the law or not. I don't see the application here, although perhaps it is in the complete opinion.
Your statement: "It is Congress and the President representing our interests (or not as was the case in 2008)." Our interests were protected in 2008. The economy was teetering over a cliff. I am guessing people may not have liked their methods but have taken for granted that our economic system was salvaged. Once again the Democrats sweep in and clean up the Republican messes and get blamed for it.
https://www.ft.com/content/b5b764cc-d657-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e#:~:text=How%20Barack%20Obama%20rescued%20the%20US%20economy
Barbara, Apology for delay.....was working.
Were our interests protected in 2008?
For example, in 1929 when the economy crashed the "financial instruments" used to "soft land" the economy in 2008 were not utilized and as a result, the dead economy highlighted to Americans who exactly was to blame for the mess for many years - Republicans.
It took another 40 years before people forgot and started electing Republicans again.
In 2008, had the government not used experimental methods, the total results of which are still unknown, the economy would have been dead for at least 5 years.
Do you think Trump would have had half a chance to win an election if everyone still remembered 8 years of Republican Bush II's dead economy?
Not hardly. So, I would say, BANK interests were protected and the story was our interests were protected as cover.
It is not clear at all, to me, that my own, or the people of this country's interest was protected.
However, I understand that the common thinking/lore is that all of the financial experimentation helped.
With $5 Trillion of those worthless Mortgage backed "securities" STILL on the books at the Fed Barbara? Who knows what will happen.
Now, we also have another $5 Trillion dollars of ETF's purchased during the Pandemic by the Fed. $10 Trillion off the books spending that we did not authorize, we do not understand and we do not know the consequences.
That is not in my interest. I don't think anyway.
Just the tiny bit of research I did on this subject yielded an awful lot of opinions on the subject. Here are 2 more links containing opposing views.
https://www.ft.com/content/b5b764cc-d657-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e#:~:text=How%20Barack%20Obama%20rescued%20the%20US%20economy
and
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/4-economists-evaluate-obamas-economic-legacy#:~:text=4%20economists%20evaluate%20Obama%E2%80%99s%20economic%20legacy
Here is broader view Mike
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-record/economy#:~:text=Stabilized%20an%20Economy%20in%20Crisis%20and%20Laid%20the%20Groundwork%20for%20Long%2DTerm%20Growth
Mike S upstateNY, I understand your engineering perspective but most of existence falls in the grey areas. For example, mathematical models are approximations of reality. The Wharton Econometric Model was world renowned many years ago when I was at the school, but it was far from perfect.
Legislators can not precisely specify every facet of every decision an engineer or judge might face. That would require the legislature to engineer every project or every criminal approach that might ever be. It would eliminate invention. I know for a fact that engineering regulations set standards, not full designs.
Stanley. Much of engineering is not math models, but, that is the cool stuff, I agree.
More of engineering is just a slog of hard work where one has to pay attention and get the details right and then check again to make sure. THEN, be PRESENT when the project starts.
So, I am extending not a math model but an entire rigorous process.
I believe that Congress should write clear laws. Without those clear laws then 2008 can happen where the SEC does absolutely NOTHING after a bunch of crooks sell assets they knew were worthless to everyone.
The SEC is tootless already. Evidence of that toothless nature of the SEC abounds, not the least of which is not a single arrest in 2008.
Is that what you want? Because, that is not what I want. I want responsible government to write responsible laws that are clear enough to arrest crooks that do something besides rob a grocery store of a loaf of bread and go to jail.
Thank you so much Mike, for your perspective. "...not the least of which is not a single arrest in 2008" brings to mind the film "The Big Short" and book of the same name written by Michael Lewis. Well worth viewing/reading. In addition to the basic lack of legal AND moral accountability underscored by the film and book, your comments serve as a poignant reminder that as is the case with so many issues, a letter to our elected representatives is worth the time and effort.
Thanks John,
My kids made me watch the "Big Short" one evening. I did not want to because I had already, long before, sorted out what happened through various reading methods.
Watching someone make big money on the lack of clear laws in the United States where selling worthless junk is relevant?
Not my idea of a warm evening with family.
:-)
“ More of engineering is just a slog of hard work where one has to pay attention and get the details right and then check again to make sure. THEN, be PRESENT when the project starts.”
If we substitute “legislating” for “engineering” in this statement this entire discussion collapses. Few if any legislators have the education or mindset of a good engineer.
Victor.
But many of them are from Harvard? Should that not endow them with the ability to work hard, think, negotiate, read, discern and deliver?
Ok, yes, that sentence is a joke. I make fun of Harvard at least once a week.
In the US, we have a system of common law, whereby precedent (stare decisis) and judicial rulings are used to determine legality, as opposed to a civil law system, whereby statutes and ordinances determine legality. The regulations imposed by the executive branch, to fulfill laws created by the legislative branch, seem to me to fall under this category of precedent, and declaring that unconstitutional seems cataclysmic to me. The SEC decision cited here would provide the precedent to dismantle our entire system of regulation. Yikes.
My anecdotal experience of a country with a civil law system is that laws must be written with great specificity, and apply only to situations which match those described in the law, and that therefore, there are many, many more laws on the books, which can be unwieldy. What you suggest, Mike, seems to me to fall more under this civil law ideal. While we, here in the US, allow Congress to delegate that power to the executive branch. Regulations are easier to change than laws, and hopefully that gets done by experts. When it works, this seems a better system to me.
KR, a reasonable perspective.
When a process works, I am on board for it.
I am wending my way through "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer. It is shocking that corporations and independently wealthy people (usually white men) manage our government to their liking. Your use of a corporate CEO as illustration fits very well. These are the guys in charge of pretty much everything. Also, it's a one way assault as corporations rarely have to listen to "the people," as government presumably has to.
Beware of "Foundations" another word for manipulation of money and politics. Extraordinary wealth has managed not only our government and its branches, but our religious, educational, and social environments. Issues and causes are distractants and are meant to demolish laws. Ultimately, it all means to serve one purpose; corporate wealth and less taxation. Corporations (actually, their CEOs and top officers) are blinkered because they have entrenched beliefs they are deserving, superior, and on the side of might and right. Since Reagan, they have been dismantling the New Deal and empowering the Republican party. (My rephrasing from the book.)
I recently finished reading Dark Money. Scary stuff, but it shouldn't be unknown to anyone who reads the omens. Or reads HCR. I fear for our democracy
I never thought corporations, especially the oil and gas (the Kochtopus, e.g,) cabals were quite so bold and relentless. Even the Supreme Court...
I haven’t ever gotten through that book yet and I’ve owned it for 2 years now. I found myself so frustrated that I, personally, cannot do anything to stop these filthy rich criminals.
Damn, logic. Wish the SC had a tad of that.
I've nothing more to add, other than to say thanks for your comment.
Yeah, the decision gets appealed - to the court that wants to overthrow the government.
If there isn't some way to get enough Senators to allow a court expansion - which given the way the Senate works is close to impossible now - the country is a ship headed for the rocks. The useful (i.e. blue) states will take to the lifeboats in the form of secession, leaving the rest to sink when their blue state tax payment welfare gets cut off.
If both non-delegation and the Senate filibuster prevail, democracy will indeed be shipwrecked.
...compliments of the Party of NO
The Republicans have won the grandest prize of them all; the Supreme Court.
Do you really think they will just give it away?
Not in our lifetime. Not with Manchin and Sinema in their pocket.
Baring a surprise flip of three or more Senate seats at midterms it’s not happening.
Why I will donate til I bleed to the three senate candidates with the best chance of winning.
Perfect. You inspired me to donate more. Although more never seems enough .
We are going to do the same. We had our primary election in Oregon Tuesday and I was thinking that it is time to make a list for donations both here and across the country. As an aside we are still waiting for the results on Schrader's fate. His opponent is ahead, but... The county clerk in Clackastan (Clackamus County) knew two weeks before that there was a printing problem, but didn't do enough to take care of that. I don't know how long it was take because they are taking the original ballot (two people, one from each party doing this) and marking a new ballot that can fed into the machine. The county has offered other county workers to help. We do have a three woman governor's race now. Flannel shirt crypto financed Carrick Flynn lost and we have a Latina woman as the D candidate for the new CD six.
Michele, do you know yet what the voter turnout rate was?
It surged at the last minute....I want to say around 30 percent or so which is miserable, but better than the 10 percent or so we were seeing late in the game. Lots came in the mail because the ballot only had to be postmarked on the 18th, so could arrive the next day. Drop boxes saw lots of last minute activity too. We voted the weekend after we got the ballots. Had to take the ballots to the post office as someone ripped the front off our community mail box. It is finally fixed and we got our keys just this week.
30% is discouraging. Thanks for the report. It will help motivate me to keep writing get-out-the-vote postcards.
Is it time for a list of the best and most necessary wins to be said out loud here?
I would like to see a list.
And the Democrats must also maintain control of the House after midterms.
Both events happening? Possible but how likely?
too damned true
You might argue that the same Senate blockade that would preclude a Supreme Court expansion might also preclude a number-of-states expansion (specifically the addition of Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, maybe New York City, and *perhaps* some Pacific Islands); however, I think that were R states faced with the cutting off of the McConnell-states’ trough (and the prospect of unwinnable civil war) versus allowing an expansion of the country not the court, most would accede, changing the playing field radically while preserving the face they apparently need to save above all else.
Dems would need to make the two Trojan Horses into real Democrats, good luck on that.
Exactly, Jeri
Agree 100%, Laura. Also about expansion of state rights to territories….especially Puerto Rico and DC.
And you are on target about Sen McConnell. He continues to be more in the position of between a rock and a hard place. I cannot remember a President or elected official that created circumstance that makes it so difficult to walk the political high wire “do what I say, not what I do”. I swear, every time I watch McConnell speak, there is a more vacuous attitude swirling around him.
Salud, Laura.
He is a destroyer as much as death star. I loathe that man. Oh, and one of the people we will be donating to is Randy Paul's opponent.
Rand Paul, that POS! He’s batshit crazy!
Anyone named after Ayn Rand is bound to have problems.
If anyone wants to throw a few $$$ to Cheri Beasley here in NC running for Sen Burr’s Senate seat, I’m sure she’d appreciate it. Check her out. She’s a wonderful candidate 💛.
I wish he was 6 feet under a few rocks.
I wish I shared your optimism about my fellow Americans, but I don't.
TC, I can't leave the US like some readers here have done, but I confess to sometimes wishing exactly what you mention. I got so frustrated with the anti-maskers and anti-vax people that I would think, OKAY then, just do what you want and die! But, as a retired healthcare worker, I knew that we MUST attempt to protect the vulnerable. And my poor, vulnerable vaxed & boosted brother (who had not left his senior living facility room in over a year)--COVID came to visit and took him this past January. This pandemic has to end at some point (when, Lord knows!) and I wish this madness in the GQP would end (but I am doubtful) but in either case, I will NOT forget which party is responsible for the mess this country is in. And this never-before-vote-straight-ticket voter will act accordingly.
I'm so sorry you lost your bother, Miselle. You must be furious at the anti-vax and anti-mask covidiots.
I’m sorry for your brother’s senseless death.
Thanks Ally. I'd written about it on here prior. He was in the moderate stages of dementia. He was sinking but nowhere near death. He had aphasia so he couldn't communicate at all. In a way, his suffering was ended. I was too afraid to visit him at the end (I was with him the day before he was diagnosed and knew something was wrong, but he couldn't tell me, so I was in isolation anyhow) I am just sad that his adult kids had to gown, mask and face shield to be with him, but at least, they were allowed to be with him. Many, if not most, had to say goodbye via phone.
Ahh, I had not made that connection. We are going through the dementia drama with my father-in-law right now. There are literally no resources for him in a 300 mile radius. We’ve had 2 potential placements fall through this week; have a decision coming on a third today.
I feel for you. My brother was in Assisted LIving, when he went, his aphasia was bad but he still had a small (very) vocabulary. He was able to go to p/t there, speech therapy, to the dining room (he had a key chain with tags of photos of what he wanted to eat, as the words often failed him). Three months later, COVID hit. For many months, no visitors at all were allowed. It was IMPOSSIBLE to explain to him, he had little verbal comprehension. I didn't see him for a year. The residents stayed in their rooms, and his decline sped up. By the time I was vaxed and could visit, he could say single words, sometimes a sentence fragment. I'd bring him favorite meals (the food there was not awful, but not appetizing, and he couldn't fill out forms to order anything. They were short staffed, nobody to help him) His dementia seemed to be increasing but they would not transfer him into their dementia unit as "he isn't an escape risk." !!!!!!!!!!!!! OH, girl, I have sooooo many stories.
Long story short, he was a veteran and with some help, my niece got him on hospice (pulling a few strings and a kind hospice RN who knew how to word things) which helped tremendously. The staff at the place said he was belligerent and just left him alone--he was belligerent because he didn't understand words and the staff wasn't trained to handle him.
I digress. It was heartbreaking, the number of times I yelled at the staff (NOT MY PERSONALITY) or left sobbing.......
The "human warehousing" of the elderly in this country is appalling! I hope you can find a placement. I can totally believe you have to go outside of 300 miles, and realistically, how often can you and/or your wife then travel that far to go check on him? I wish that my brother could have aged at home or with family, but sometimes that is just not possible for the care that our loved ones require.
You’re describing exactly what we’re experiencing. Nothing local, no real Veterans assistance. It’s discouraging.
Ally, that’s hard too. I am so very sorry. My dad had had dementia and my mom kept him at home. It took a toll on her life too. My sister and I tried to intervene, get help for her to take care of him. She wouldn’t hear of it. He passed away a year after their 50th anniversary, in 1997. She lived until January 2006, brain fully intact but the body couldn’t keep up. My best to you and your partner also.
I'm sorry, Ally.
I'm sorry, Miselle.
Miselle, I am sorry for the loss of your brother. I will also vote the straight Democratic ticket (have done for years now). Even though I am not sure it will really help.
It might not help, but it definitely won't hurt. :-)
I'm so sorry to hear that about your brother. I wonder which anti-vax scumbag among those charged with his care who wouldn't take care was responsible for the death.
Oh Miselle, so painful to hear about your brother’s loss. I too, lost my best friend of 47 years last November. Not to Covid but to cancer. It hurts. Thank you for giving of yourself as a healthcare worker. One of the most difficult jobs these days. My best to you.
Biden must follow FDR’s threat to expand the Court to iron out these discrepancies. Wish he had proposed this sooner but good grief, the man has a multitude of problems on his plate!!
You can't do that without the congressional votes in hand to back up the threat.
😩
FDR’s threat of court expansion worked then, but I think we are in more danger than the 1930’s. The house and senate must maintain majorities to maintain the balance of our system. SCOTUS must be expanded to even have an appearance of balance. Are we heading to the deep waters in the fight against the one party authoritarian state?
FDR had congressional majorities to back up his threat. We don't.
We're not heading into the deep waters. We're there! In a leaky canoe.
Maybe, but I do feel Biden should still make that statement.
👌🏼
The Republicans’ voting against funding the federal government’s buying of foreign baby formula shows that, once again, it’s not about the babies. It’s all about Republican Party power and making President Biden look ineffectual.
The nondelegation issue is chilling. The chaos of making Congress set up committees to handle everything that the current federal departments handle would help prove Putin’s contention that democracies are too inefficient. I had preferred the imposition of 18 year term limits on SCOTUS rather than increasing the number of judges, but that might move too slowly to avoid the crazy thinking that seems to go along with being recommended by the Federalist Society.
Mary, in reference to your first paragraph, I'm trying to explain this to my cousin who is unaware of what she is voting for (or against). How could they vote against something like that but at the same time be pushing to end Roe vs. Wade? Apparently they could care less if those unborn babies have no formula to survive when they enter this world. As long as they get their way. It makes me sick. How do they even sleep at night?
The Party of NO! sleeps very little; its members need that time to think up more ways it can hobble a government of, by & for the people.
That’s why I said that it wasn’t about the babies, any more than the abortion legislation is about them. If it were about making abortions rare, they’d go after the root cause—fertility—and offer free contraception including vasectomies and tubal ligations. If it were about the babies, they’d offer programs to make the lives of unaborted babies decent lives by making sure that they have enough good food to eat, a decent place to live, good schools, childcare that adds to their lives, etc. As I said, if it were about the babies instead of being designed to make fertile female workers an employment liability once again because they “could get pregnant at any time” (an excuse used to discriminate in the years before dependable reproductive healthcare and legal contraception).
Vasectomies can be reversed so tell all young men that the rule of law shall be they get a vasectomy at birth. Also take away the right of Viagra for men when they get older.
Jeanne, my feelings exactly. No food for the babies brought to "life", those same babies whose pre-birth lives were threatened by Roe, begs the question what are they thinking there in DC?
Imagine a future for all the babies born to minorities who cannot be cared for by the families they're born into, being given up to child rearing organizations. I'm afraid America will warehouse these children like Ceausescu did in Romania. Shameful.
The “pro-life” people INDEED! 🤬
yep, bring them into the world and let them starve....
I might have to join the Federalist Society just to engage in arguments about their absurd positions. Would be fun.
I would stroke out on the first round
Too funny!
Me too! I think I might squeeze a few scrotums with my long fingernails until the male species turns purple.
Hie, Matt, With my wicked and generally inappropriate sense of humor, I would be with you under any other circumstances than, sadly, the ones we're in. I've watched in dismay as these determined, committed men have planned and executed one of the most horrifying coups in a democratic country that I could even have imagined. Their positions might well be absurd by any known standards of reason, but they aren't aiming for reason. They're entirely interested in power, and they're good at it--because they aren't going to war; they're not pulling out their revolvers. They are pulling in the crazies like the Christian Dominionists, the ideologues like Mike Pence, the infantile sociopaths like Trump, and turning them loose. I don't think the Federalists give a darn about any of the current issues stirring up so much heat. They are soul-less SOB's and they are, IMHO, dangerous. Sorry to be such a downer but of all the players these guys scare me the most--with the possible exception of Amy CB--and she's a Federalist pick.
And add the voters who vote the Repug ticket not paying attention or caring what and why. Their family’s party?
Indeed yes, Irenie!
Matt Fulkerson, hehehe, wouldn’t it be just a riot to interrupt every conversation with facts? With hard truths? With common sense? Made me laugh out loud. Would be fun!!
What if 18 year term limits were enacted for the SC. Clarence Thomas should be the first one to go.
No, not if the court itself ruled that current members are grandfathered under current standards. No one wants more than me to see Thomas go. It will take time and a lot of suffering but I do think the size of the court and term limits will happen in my children's life time.
Aren’t there currently 12 judicial circuits in the US? Hasn’t the Court at times expanded to keep up with the number of judicial circuits? It seems to me that 9 is way too small a number of people to adjudicate matters for a nation of 330 million people.
There are 13, I think. And I agree, this is a great argument for expanding the court.
And 13 has such a wonderful historic symbolism: the original 13 colonies.
However, a Supreme Court justice can be impeached. That is what we should be calling for!
The Supreme Court and some of the lesser court bring to mind a phalanx of rumbling bulldozers and cranes with wrecking balls, engines spewing diesel smoke, surrounding our institutions. Any minute now they're going to level everything. And what will be left other than chaos?
Two things off these frightening topics. I have a HUGE list of all things President Biden has accomplised if anyone wants them to use against those who contine to say he's done nothing. Email me at gaileegailee@gmail.com. 2nd. I am receiving many emails with John Fetterman in the subject line asking for donations for John. When I check the sender it is someone else and the donation will be split between John and the person sending the email. This includes Chuck Schumer. I am going to o ly give directly to those candidates so my donations are not diluted.
Just a little sleight of hand. I never respond to donation emails. I have my list and go directly to ActBlue.
Me too⚘
I respond only when it's a reminder of someone I want to support. I'm a dual US citizen (born there) and live in Canada, so have to give my Passport number for Federal candidates, and an actual photograph of my passport for others, like the race for Governor of Georgia.
Yes, I too am a dual citizen.
Thank you Gailee. Our mailboxes are overflowing with asks daily, even if we donated yesterday. Connecting the dots takes more than a PhD. We need a microscope. And as yet an unpatented corruption meter. In this case it’s not only the repugs. Thanks to the courts. And the laws that do not protect Democracy or the people.
Agree! I had gotten my emails down to a mere hundred and I turned my head for a minute, 500 showed up! Grrr
What’s amazing is that 500 isn’t an exaggeration. Hope you’re more organized than I am and delete quickly. I’m not good at cleaning out. Living on overload.
Here is one list of President Biden's accomplishments.
https://oliverwillis.com/joe-biden-accomplishments-the-full-list/#:~:text=As%20of%20February%202022%20there%20are%20114%20verified%20accomplishments%20for%20Biden%20on%20the%20comprehensive%20list.
Thank you. Impressive list and wouldn’t it be more than helpful if the press published a weekly checklist? That list is a model for all elected officials. What is their job and what exactly are they accomplishing? Have they made campaign promises they have fulfilled? And what are their promises ? Unfortunately we watched TFG fulfill many of his promises. And he made sure his followers knew. And know.
Are you familiar with the "Just Security" website? It covers all things legal in this Country.
Thank you, Barbara. I’ll check it out. There are many resources online and finding the ones we can trust is a process.
It is an impressive list isn't it. It is things like this list that tells me all is not over. We are definitely in a fight for our Democracy but good and solid things are still being done.
What a treat! Thank you
It only partially opened. What opened wouldn't print.
Try the online version instead of the link
Great list, though I wish there was a print-friendly version!
Try getting it directly from the online version. Maybe that will print
Thank you for shinning a light on donation pitfalls. Very helpful.
I had that happen with Tim Kaine. Enough complained that the donations were rerouted to the candidate he was supporting. I now only donate directly to the candidate I support.
We shouldn't have to be watch dogs for this.⚘
Right! We shouldn't even have to be donating any money to our elected representatives to do the jobs we elected them to do. In any other country that same giving money to politicians would be called illegal: "GRAFT, CORRUPTION, BRIBERY, EXTORTION, AND NEPOTISM, CHARACTERIZED BY THE SUBORDINATION OF PUBLIC INTERESTS TO PRIVATE AIMS AND VIOLATIONS OF THE NORMS OF DUTY AND WELFARE, ACCOMPANIED BY SECRECY, BETRAYAL, DECEPTION AND A CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR ANY CONSEQUENCES SUFFERED BY THE PUBLIC.
John, I have rarely seen it stated as clearly as your opening sentence. Good grief! Is there any area of our culture that isn't the laughing-stock of the world?
Thank you. I think this every day with the inundation of requests.
Absolutely! Our donations are the “legal” contributions to candidates. And then there are the other “legal” corporate and high tax bracket tax deductible “donations” that buy their candidates.
Sen. Warner does the same.
Gailee, I feel the same way about solicitations that are split between two or more candidates. I always contribute directly to the persons I choose to support.
How can Republicans in Congress be opposed to appropriating some money to solve the apparent shortage of baby formula? Simple, they think that extending the problem will harm the Democrats more than the Republicans. But isn't this an instructive example of the much noted aversion of Republicans to do anything at all for the benefit of families with children, after insisting that all zygotes be raised to full personhood?
Requires two brain cells to work, a heavy lift for cult MAGAts, but not for their leaders. They know…
Two cells is one too many...
...they must remain the Party of NO!
Non delegation. Sounds like 2008 on steroids with the accompanying recession because no one was checking financial institutions shenanigans of greed. Do we have to have a 1929 crash in this century since we seem to be repeating the major events of the first part of the twentieth century? Scary!
Exactly what they want. I remember the first time I read a Republican screed against FDR. I thought they had lost their minds. As CSD on Twitter said “they piss themselves every presidency, while we “tax and spend” libs have to buy new sheets.” History’s lessons are drowned out by propaganda…
Jeri, What a wise thing to say about history's lessons and propaganda. And why do we fall for the propaganda so often? Is it just because it's louder?
Cathy, 2008 would have been 1929 except that the Fed bought $5 Trillion of the worthless assets from banks to keep them solvent.
That $5 Trillion of worthless assets is on the books at the Fed today. Still.
So, here we see the problem. It is so totally legal to sell worthless assets in America, as there is no law against it, that even the FEDERAL RESERVE bought those assets.
This is the problem with the SEC doing the regulating without Congressional laws making what is illegal clear.
The SEC can do nothing without clear laws. Or, alternatively, clear laws make the SEC not needed. Just have the sheriff show up at JP Morgan and arrest Jimmy Demon and toss him in jail after reading his rights.
Why are we not doing that already? Is it because nobody in Congress has the guts to write such laws? They want to hide behind the SEC?
In 2005, we bought our "dream home" using a "stated income, no doc" mortgage. 1% interest rate, adjustable after a year. We already had a home with a mortgage. The real estate market was hot and we knew we would sell the old place quickly. We thought of it as a "bridge loan". A mortgage "broker" sat at our kitchen table and asked us for our legal names and SS numbers. Then he got up and started to leave. I asked: "Don't you want to know what are income is? Our liabilities, loans???" He said: "Don't worry about it..I fill it in so it works for us."
We knew what were doing. We got our new home, sold the old one and paid off the crazy mortgage. We dodged a bullet. But millions of others were clueless and a couple of years later found themselves owing much more than their homes were worth.
So, I guess Federal banking regulations just might be a good idea, eh?
Bill, banking regulations were put in place after the 2008 crash. But, not by an agency.
Congress passed the Dodd-Frank bill into law, President Obama signed it.
Since then, no bank crash, BUT, I think under Trump they might have repealed that law.
If the law wasn't repealed it was probably crippled by....
And then there is Mick and his dismantling of the Consumer Protection Bureau. How these puppets of the Oligarchs get away with this stuff is always and will always be stunning to me. Here was an agency that was created to protect the average American and the average American barely blinked an eye. There should have been protests and an enormous push back. But it was meh, meh as folks were still comfy in front of their big TVs and big phablets.
Ever watch Katie Porter’s condemnation of Dimon and other bank execs? She is SO brilliant as is Sherrod Whitehouse! They get my money periodically.
And I can see Sherrod Whitehouse in the Whitehouse.
I agree. Katie Porter is great.
Hmmm. That is not the only thing that saved the economy in 2008 Mike is it?
Great points, Mike. In our 1% rich world and Citizens United make corruption and bribery perfectly legal, I don't know where we find the solution to income disparity and citizenship disparity. We are going down a very dark rabbit hole.
Cathy, I worry too.
Mike, do you think the Fed should not have done that? Should have allowed the economy to crater?
KR.
The Fed should NOT have bought worthless assets. No. People, then, would have remembered what happens after 8 years of Republican shennaigans for 20 years instead of 2.
Cathy, 2008 highlights the problem with the SEC being in charge of "regulating".
Since there was no law on the books, it was legal to sell, worldwide, any worthless asset.
After the entire world economy crashed because banks had been selling known worthless assets worldwide, then, who was arrested?
Nobody. We need laws on the books that detail what is illegal, why it is illegal, what the sentencing guidelines for breaking the law is, and, then,
We need to send people to jail who break the law.
Right now? Anyone can do anything in America and nobody goes to jail.
UNLESS you are black and rob a 7-11 for a loaf of bread to feed your family. THEN, you get arrested and spend 10 years in prison. That law is on the books.
You have to read "On Corruption in America" by Sarah Chayes. You won't believe how Wall Street runs the SEC. She describes the networks of complicity in detail.
Jeff. Thanks for the reference. I would believe it though.
Sarah Chayes?
Thanks; clumsy fingers... I corrected it.
Mike, you nailed. Take us back to the dark times, Les Misérables.
Part of the reason there is no regulation is we have the Foxes guarding the chicken coop of Congress. I would also argue that our personal power politicians know little about what kind of regulation the finance industry needs. .. On your last statement: One of the commentators on MSNBC talked about how a white kid that just killed ten black people with the gun still in his hands got talked into lowering the gun and being arrested. Do you think they would have given any black kid that chance?
No, the black kid would’ve been shot hundreds of times. But you mention the foxes around the Congress chicken coop and i immediately saw Murdoch and ilk!
Or get an abortion in some states.
This time a crash would be just what the repugs ordered, a fast track to the end of Democracy.
👌🏼
What a frightening letter. Here are a series of events that demonstrate to Americans that the GQP won't support even the most basic legislation - because it came from a Democratic leadership and Administration. This is not simply "politics". This is anti-American partisanship. Think about this. During a time where HUMAN BABIES are literally STARVING, 192 Republican Representatives voted against funding a solution for providing BABY formula. How does an elected official defend that?
Now I understand. Based on the issues in this letter, Republicans are pro life unless the baby needs to eat. Republicans are anti violence unless the violence is created by Neo Nazis and White Supremacists. And Republicans are pro American business even if they pollute, abuse their employees and sell dangerously contaminated products. And insider trading would be fine as well...
By the logic of the "non delegation theory", I guess we could save a lot of money by just disbanding our entire military structure! But we wouldn't do that, would we? Too many Republican pockets are lined with Federal defense dollars.
And now I understand what the Republican "platform" is. To create an America that is pure white and free to carry weapons. An America that has no central government to guarantee our human rights. An America run by Oligarchs - and yahoos with weapons. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Like I usually say and believe to my core, “I am afraid, but not scared.”
I don’t think you are scared either, Bill.
Salud!
Jasus Christ on a crutch! We seem to have developed a culture that is intent on committing kamikaze. We have. 1) global heating, 2) an energy crisis, 3) a population crisis, 4) an environmental crisis .. but hey, who gives a damn. And it's not just the US of A - we have Russia, Gulf States, China, etc, it's not a good look for the future - we are, it seems, intent of destroying our only planet. I put a lot of this down to the the massive urbanisation of our populations. "Green trees? - oh yes, I think I've seen them in pictures". "Honey, can you turn up the A/C - my ice cream is melting".
Love your first sentence, well, every sentence. And we la-de-Dah about sports, the Kardashians, and every inane thing the networks can devise. I will quote a world that is in my dreams, from the end of a show Murdoch Mysteries, Season 13, episode 11, setting, Toronto, ca 1910, “The future is unknown, but indicators abound as to what it might become. Wireless communication portends the instantaneous dissemination of knowledge from all parts of the world. Knowledge will end prejudice, demagogues will no longer flourish, lies and misinformation will disappear. The matters and crises that shake us all will be dealt with intelligently and plausibly. All of humanity will be able to embrace their better selves. At the end of the 20th century and beyond, truth and knowledge will prevail.” Blew that one, didn’t we?
Jeri, I vote for that world. Oh, that’s another “virtual” idea isn’t it? Meanwhile, we watch the dismantling of Democracy thanks to courts and laws run by autocrats, big money and repugs, government for the people in name only.
It would all work quite well were there not such a thing as greed manifest as the profit motive and the reliable emergence of individuals seeking power at any cost.
Normal behaviour in kindergarten. And if someone crosses you, you stick out your lower lip, scream insults, and hit them. And lie to get out of trouble.
...and then when you're older, buy a gun and blow them away. It seems guns are used to settle all disputes now, no matter how trivial. Somebody cut you off? Blow them away. Somebody even looks at you in a way you don't like? Blow then away. Somebody has something you want? Blow them away and take it. It's rampant and getting worse. Small wonder I don't want to set foot outside my door anymore. I dreamily reflect still of the life I had in Holland and at times WISH I was back there...
You're quoting Nikola Tesla?
Thanks, Jeri ! Murdoch Mysteries is the best and most brilliant show on the telly (that I've seen)! The writing, the storylines, the subtle humour, the history, and the Canadiana of it all!
As Mike S. days: Americans are the problem. We are so hooked into both the pablum of sports/entertainment AND the hateful rhetoric of politics that show the failure to teach critical thinking and actual history is going to be the destruction of thin democracy.
Ally,
Yes, the problem with America is Americans!
Add the UFO issue and we have the perfect storm.
LOL
Hugh, I always ask this question: "Do you miss the Dinosaurs?"
.................... (answer here).
Because, when we go extinct, the next species on earth?
Won't miss us either.
:-)
just to keep us aware - this is what the Repubs want... for some reason this dynamic seems uncontrollable.
>This paragraph seems to sum, in addition the dilemma we face as the nature of some of the “beasts”
“That is what companies are for.
They are designed to multiply capital; what they make is irrelevant.
Torpedoes, food, clothes, furniture. It is all the same.
To that end they will do anything to survive and prosper.
Can they make more money employing slave labour?
If so, they must do so.
Can they increase profits by selling things which kill others?
They must do so again.
What if they lay waste the landscape, ruin forests, uproot communities and poison the rivers?
They are obliged to do all these things, if they can increase their profits.”
“A company is a moral imbecile.
It has no sense of right or wrong.
Any restraints have to come from the outside, from laws and customs which forbid it from doing certain things of which we disapprove.
But it is a restraint which reduces profits.
Which is why all companies will strain forever to break the bounds of the law, to act unfettered in their pursuit of advantage.
That is the only way they can survive because the more powerful will devour the weak.
And because it is the nature of capital, which is wild, longs to be free and chafes at each and every restriction imposed on it.”<
from Stone’s Fall by Iain Pears
Greed. Capitalism as we know it. Always about the distribution of wealth and the power to distribute same.
So, 203 Republicans in Congress voted against having a task force that would share information across government agencies to combat domestic terrorism by white supremacists and Nazis. Not five or ten right wing radical racists voted against this, 203 Republicans did. They did so after yet ANOTHER shooting by a white supremacist. I have a different replacement theory, meaning these 203 Republicans need to be replaced in Congress.
And this is exactly why I don't trust ANY of the Republicans in Congress.
If Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1934, with certain regulatory responsibilities, how can a court, under any legal theory whatsoever, say that they (Congress) had no authority to do that? Clearly this is a case where the right-wing business elite is pushing to dismantle all regulation because it is oppressive to their capitalistic freedom.
....hence its ownership of The Party of NO!
Regarding the SEC: I watched as a bunch of crooks sold worthless "mortgage backed" securities as "derivatives" that they knew were worthless, to investors worldwide, and not backed by any assets in 2007 and 2008. The SEC ended up doing nothing. Not one arrest.
When the entire scheme came apart and everyone who had bet against the scheme by shorting banks brought the entire world economy down?
The SEC arrested ONE person (not for bank fraud or mortgage securities fraud but for insider trading). Martha Stewart. For insider trading unrelated to mortgage fraud.
Not one of the perpetrators of the fake mortgage backed securities was arrested. Not one.
Worse, the government stepped in with both direct payments to banks and the Fed began buying, for the first time in history, the worthless mortgage bonds off the books of the banks, the first time the Fed have ever printed money to buy a fake asset that was worthless. Or even a good asset.
What's my point you ask?
The SEC is already toothless and useless. Nobody on Wall Street is worried about that agency and nobody should be.
I think the executive branch, through the SEC, should regulate business and should arrest criminals.
But, nobody is regulating anything up in DC.
I love Obama but do you know to whom his first $400,000 speech was after 8 years of him using the Fed to give them money by buying mortgage backed securities??
Yep. A Bank.
Everyone, it is already all messed up in the regulatory domain. Companies pay off members of the regulatory agencies to get what they want.
The final amount of mortgage backed securities bought by the Fed? Five Trillion Dollars.
Those are mostly STILL on the Fed's books. Today. Owned by, yes, you and me.
They are still worthless.
So, I am not losing any sleep about an agency that is already doing nothing doing more of nothing.
What if more of that money had been pumped into the economy - through making whole the people who were sold scam mortgages? Sure, there would have been major bank failures. So what? There would be new ones popping up left and right. Money lending is a very juicy enterprise. And some old banks would have filed Chapter 11 and keep scamming along.
I am a fan of Obama on a character level. But he embraced establishment economics to the detriment of the average citizen. If ever there had been a chance to rebuild our nations financial systems, it was in 2009. Instead we went back to the same poisoned well.
In my world, Obama was the best Republican president since Eisenhower.
Ha Ha. I grew up in a I like Ike family. I love your comment for its incisive humor. Obama was hamstrung by McConnell. And he tried too hard to unite. The radical right was dedicated to his destruction. Obama was a bit naive.
President Biden, too, was naive in his belief that the current-day Republicans would embrace the bipartisanship he remembered from his time in the Senate decades ago.
Yep.
Right! What if we had actually created "shovel ready projects" and completed them instead of talking about them and doing nothing.
But it’s just the beginning..l
Well, non-delegation wasn’t on my list of terrors for the new day. But, as always, thank you.
The Federalist Society is behind this:
"Since 2019, a majority of the current Supreme Court has expressed interest in revitalizing the nondelegation doctrine, which prohibits Congress from delegating any of its lawmaking power to regulatory agencies in the executive branch. Unfortunately, relying on a highly deferential application of this constitutional principle, the Court has not invoked the nondelegation doctrine to strike down a statute since 1935. That contributed to broad delegations of rulemaking power to regulatory agencies in the decades that followed. A reinvigoration of the nondelegation doctrine, accordingly, has the potential to restrict the growth and power of these agencies, better known today as the 'administrative state.'"
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/an-empty-attack-on-the-nondelegation-doctrine
Evil at it’s core, destruction is the goal. Grover Norquist is filled with glee
I was just thinking the same thing. Let’s feed Grover uninspected meat and give him drugs that have not gone through any FDA protocols.
Or just give him baby formula from Abbot.
And there are a lot of folks with very deep pockets in the Federalist Society
Thanks for the link. The Federalist Society…I’d like to see all the members lined up. What do you think they look like? 😱 ❤️🤍💙
Thank you Heather.
“As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out, the nondelegation doctrine would mean that “most of Government is unconstitutional.””
Where the right would lead US is so very wrong. I feel afraid and sickened and not a little indignant. “Damn the torpedoes!”
Well, the two Trojan Horses had better STFU when Democrats try to expand the SC, or am I living in dream land. Republicans have smelled blood and they will stop at NOTHING to destroy our current government and bring back the business (Repub) rule that brought us every recession in the last 100+ years. Every one.
Jeri, I hate to respond like this so early in the morning but, yes, dream land :-(