Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Email *
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • The Administrative State to Citizens: You Have No Rights

    Posted by Michael Hiteshew on June 1st, 2016 (All posts by )

    The Pacific Legal Foundation, who last year at the Supreme Court won the right of citizens to challenge EPA rulings, has now won the right of citizens to challenge the determinations of the US Army Corps of Engineers.

    It is not enough that agencies pass rulings and regulations that amount to law without their ever going through Congress or being voted on. Increasingly, the Administrative State takes the approach that you will do whatever they say without recourse, under penalty of egregious fines or imprisonment. Your tax dollars at work.

    PLF is donation supported.

     

     

    14 Responses to “The Administrative State to Citizens: You Have No Rights”

    1. dearieme Says:

      Any lawyers here will know more about it than I do, but I gather Germany has a court system dedicated to dealing with this sort of stuff i.e. use of bureaucratic regulation to order citizens about, as distinct from use of the law.

    2. Mike K Says:

      Mark Steyn is learning how this works to punish heretics.

      Lawyers representing conservative political commentator Mark Steyn have asked the D.C. Superior Court to expedite his case against climate scientist Michael Mann, mentioning a key witness died waiting for the trial to go to court.

      “Something needed to be done to jumpstart this case, a case that threatens the most fundamental First Amendment freedoms,” Dan Kornstein, Steyn’s lawyer, said in a statement.

      Steyn has been locked in a legal battle against Mann since 2012, and it’s been four years since the case was brought and “the appeals from defendants’ special motions to dismiss have not been decided, nor has discovery proceeded,” Kornstein said.

      Four years !

      It’s not the Administrative State but it is an ally.

    3. PenGun Says:

      This is amusing. You have a couple of Peat companies, I know quite a bit about Peat extraction, who have managed to get the supreme Court to rule on challenges to the EPA’s rulings. Makes sense to me, but this is just business, working the system.

      Now Mr Steyn is a failing Canadian rabble-rouser who’s pretty funny as well. A climate change denier who is in litigation, over libel really. This has dragged on for several reasons.

      “The upshot: the defendants (save for Mr. Steyn, who apparently is not joining this appeal) will get to brief their arguments that Mann’s lawsuit should have been dismissed under D.C.’s anti-SLAPP statute. Mann will get to re-make his argument that the appeal should be dismissed because the defendants shouldn’t be able to appeal until the end of the case. The Court will then either punt by dismissing the appeal as premature, or agree that D.C. anti-SLAPPs are immediately appealable and address the anti-SLAPP merits.”

    4. Mike K Says:

      “A climate change denier who is in litigation, over libel really”

      Are you really this stupid or is it a pose ?

      Mann sued Steyn, you idiot.

    5. Phil Ossiferz Stone Says:

      Don’t feed the troll, Mike.

    6. Mike K Says:

      At least he isn’t bragging how much he made on Google.

    7. Sgt. Mom Says:

      *snicker*

    8. Will Says:

      “More Trouble Every Day”

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/02/the-first-amendment-is-now-dead-in-california-new-california-bill-would-allow-prosecution-of-climate-change-skeptics/

    9. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      If there are still five justices on the Supreme Court who still respect the Bill of Rights, that law will not survive its first challenge.

    10. PenGun Says:

      “Mann sued Steyn, you idiot.”

      Indeed, did I say otherwise? Reading is useful before responding.

    11. Will Says:

      Professional litigants, that’s what they is. Even if the case has no merit, or can’t be won, they drain the victim financially. It’s a strategy, often referred to as “lawfare”. From street level offenses right to the top. With Flannel and Lumpy on the bench now, life is going to get a lot tougher for the lumpen-proletariat.

    12. Anonymous Says:

      PenGun – Be a pal and give a bit more clue as to what case you’re referring to. Is it US Army Corps of Engineers vs Hawkes Co. or some other case? Unanimous decisions are generally not “just working the system”. Unanimity in favor of a business happens when one party (in this case the government) goes so far out of bounds that even the most liberal justices the Democrats could get through confirmation took the small government side of things. Last I checked, the Obama administration has been unusually rich in unanimous judicial rulings against it. This is just one more in a series.

    13. TMLutas Says:

      Sorry, that last anonymous was me.

      TML

    14. PenGun Says:

      No TM, it was the poor little mom and pop peat extraction companies that I found amusing.