All Experts Out Of The US Federal Government If Republicans Win

"In a scathing dissent from the bench on Friday, Justice Elena Kagan excoriated her conservative colleagues for inserting themselves into the realm of current and future regulation and warned of an impending massive shock to the administrative system.

'A longstanding precedent at the crux of administrative governance thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority,' Kagan said of the court’s ruling. 'The majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power.'

"In a 6-3 ruling, the justices on Friday ended the 40-year practice that informed federal judges’ decision-making when federal agencies and their actions were challenged. The high court's 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council had limited judicial decision-making in favor of agency expertise.

"A range of experts jumped on Kagan’s premonition, joining her in warning that Friday's decision will have far-reaching effects. From the halls of Congress to federal courtrooms, they say the decision opens the window for an increase in litigation against federal rules, as well as a potential chill on new ones.

“The federal government and environmental groups are going to be up to our ears in litigation just trying to preserve the status quo,” Sam Sankar, the senior vice president of programs at Earthjustice, said in a press briefing following the ruling."

As bad as the recent "Presidential Immunity" decision of the US Supreme Court was, this may have more harm. 

Click on the link below for more:

Ignorance and power trump expertise 

- - - - - - - - -

Click here to help save consumer protections.

History Of Legal Precedent And Greater Recognition Of Human Rights

The Dred Scott decision by the US Supreme Court is universally recognized as its worst because of its support of slavery. The Civil War and the 13th Amendment officially ended slavery and led to a period of "Reconstruction." However, such was resisted through Jim Crow Laws, which peaked with Plessy v. Ferguson legalizing "separate but equal" in 1896. It wasn't until 1954 that this Supreme Court case was overruled by Brown v. Board of Education. In 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision recognized the right of a woman to choose abortion up to the time of viability.

The only way women and minorities have gained recognition of their inherent rights is through court decisions actualizing the US Constitution and the use of the legal principle of precedent, which directs a court to look to past decisions for guidance on how to decide a case before it. The history of Supreme Court decisions has been a bumpy ride toward greater recognition of human rights. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it would be another unfortunate case of a recognized human right being no longer so!

Regarding women's rights, it's more than time for the USA to wake up to the fact that the Republicans are attempting to continue a history that has been within the USA since its founding: stripping women of political and economic power.

The US Government And Vaccines

U.S. Supreme Court

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

Jacobson v. Massachusetts

No. 70

Argued December 6, 1904

Decided February 20, 1905

197 U.S. 11

" - - - The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.
"It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health."

Click on the link below for the context:,

On this day, the Supreme Court rules on vaccines and public health

Legal Precedent And Bodily Autonomy

I have posted several times on the issue of abortion. And, I have said that bodily autonomy is the best argument for a women's right to choose to end a pregnancy (link). Why? The legal precedence for such is very strong (link). Why then is there such opposition to accepting this precedent? Consider: 

• The vast majority of opponents to abortion are religious (link).
• Religion is the greatest force for magical thinking on the planet (link).
• Magical thinking is opposed to objective evidence as determined by science-based thinking (link).