1). Cities should have the legal authority to remove homeless encampments in areas which they don’t approve. In that regard I agree with the decision. Cities need to provide sufficient shelters as a prerequisite. That portion I disagreed.
2). Chevron needed to be overturned. Placed far too much power on the Executive branch to legislate. An Executive branch who has seen its power grow exponentially over the last few decades. If they’re ambiguities in certain laws let Congress address them or the courts interpret them. Preferably the former. Anything which throws the power pendulum back toward Congress has my approval. If Trump is elected I think some of you might come over to my side here.
A) I agree that cities should have the legal authority to move homeless encampments, I don’t agree that civil or criminal penalties should be enforceable for being homeless, which was essentially the question at hand. Bad decision with overreaching precedent.
B) Chevron did not need to be overturned. Neither Congress, nor the courts actually understand (or should be expected to understand) the full impacts of the regulations they are opining on. In the case of Congress they tend to listen to what the person donating the most money is telling them..,. And when it comes to regulations that is a case of the Fox guarding the henhouse which will lead to corruption and poorly regulated industries which have far reaching impacts on our society. Every decision will be made on what can make the corporation (or business entity) the most money which will inevitably harm common citizens.
Terrible, terrible, terrible decision.
Regardless of what happens for this election, conservatives sure are creating a lot of ammunition against themselves for future elections. If I were a Dem running in 8 years, I would make the overturning of ridiculous conservative judicial precedent a primary campaign plank (not just fighting for roe), and I think you would lose in a landslide.
www.c-span.org