Post #41450 by albaby1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (6)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 4

That’s adorable. Clearly several of the supremes’ votes are situational.

Perhaps. But they also very much want to establish limits on the power of the Federal government, and to cut down on the agencies' going back and pulling old and vague statutes out of the book to do what they want. Their recent decisions have actually moved power away from the Executive and back to Congress and/or the courts - which limits both the expansion of the regulatory state (which they want) and the ability of this particular President to accomplish certain things (which they might not want).

I wouldn't bet on them ruling against the Administration. But neither would I count out the conservatives using it as a chance to say, "no, we meant it, no more expansion of agency power through weird readings of old statutes."

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (6)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.