Another blow to the administrative state and a benefit for gun rights?

Flopsweat · May 25, 2023

That's very encouraging.

Oro · May 25, 2023

This is well worth posting but IMO his explanation is very long-winded and self-serving.

This case has intrigued me for years and I've followed it. This couple was BADLY treated by our government and it has dragged on forever. There's even a novel in the "Joe Pickett" series based wholly on this case. ("Breaking Point," 2013).

Look up "Sacket vs. EPA." The whole story will make your blood boil.

Honestly, this is not greatly different than WV vs EPA decided last year. It's a trend of reigning in the administrative state and this decision is far less "ground breaking" than WV vs EPA last year. The precedent was set thin and anyone paying attention already knew which way this one was (thankfully) going. That it was unanimous is actually the really telling thing - it means the "left" court is getting in line with recent precedent and textual thinking. That is what is significant.

Stomper · May 25, 2023

Oro said:
This is well worth posting but IMO his explanation is very long-winded and self-serving.

This case has intrigued me for years and I've followed it. This couple was BADLY treated by our government and it has dragged on forever. There's even a novel in the "Joe Pickett" series based wholly on this case. ("Breaking Point," 2013).

Look up "Sacket vs. EPA." The whole story will make your blood boil.

Honestly, this is not greatly different than WV vs EPA decided last year. It's a trend of reigning in the administrative state and this decision is far less "ground breaking" than WV vs EPA last year. The precedent was set thin and anyone paying attention already knew which way this one was (thankfully) going. That it was unanimous is actually the really telling thing - it means the "left" court is getting in line with recent precedent and textual thinking. That is what is significant.

How was the video self-serving?

Oro · May 25, 2023

Stomper said:
How was the video self-serving?

It's rather exclamatory, and it also presents itself as being "big breaking news" that in fact is only follow-on from WV vs EPA. It's not a well-reasoned or entirely honest in that regard IMO. My personal bias is I am more academically inclined and appreciate historical analysis and a judicious approach - which of course is useless in modern social media.

. Another clue is that this was a unanimous decision. Stop on that fact a moment - no unanimous decision is generally a surprise or "breaking news."

Thus, my comment was not meant as a complete dismissal. Anyone who gets out there, informs people of their rights and how they are threatened, and motivates people to stand and defend them is worthy of regard. I appreciate the message getting out.