Connect with us

International

US Supreme Court significantly reduces power of government bureaucracy

Published

5 minute read

From The Center Square

Lawmakers put federal agencies on notice after end to Chevron deference

A coalition of lawmakers are putting federal agencies on notice after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned ā€œChevron deferenceā€ and as a result, significantly limited their power.

House Oversight Chair James Comer, R-Ky., has helped lead the effort, but the relevant committee chairs with oversight of the federal government, have signed on to similarĀ letters.

ā€œThis long-needed reversal should stem the vast tide of federal agencies’ overreach,ā€ Comer said in his letters to the federal government. ā€œGiven the Biden administration’s track record, however, I am compelled to underscore the implications of Loper Bright and remind you of the limitations it has set on your authority.ā€

The push comes on the heels of the Supreme Court overturning part of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and thereby putting an end to ā€œChevron deference,ā€ a previous legal policy that gave broad license to federal bureaucrats to interpret and enforce laws passed by Congress as they saw fit.

In that vein, House lawmakers held a hearing Wednesday for oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency, the first in what is likely a new era of EPA oversight after the major Supreme Court ruling.

President Joe Biden’s EPA has pushed out a few particularly aggressive regulations that have drawn pushback.

Among those are WOTUS, an Obama-era rule that classified even tiny bodies of water as under federal jurisdiction.

More recently, the EPA’s tailpipe emissions standards are under fire, mainly because they will likely force a nationwide transition from gas to hybrid or electric vehicles in just a few years.

ā€œEPA’s largest regulations, such as the tailpipe emissions rules for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, have been estimated to cost nearly $900 billion to implement,ā€ Comer said at the hearing Wednesday. ā€œThose rules require automakers to completely redesign their operations to produce more electric vehicles – regardless of what consumers are demanding in the actual marketplace.ā€

Now, that era has likely come to an end.

ā€œThe Supreme Court decision has put policy making back into the hands of the Congress where it belongs, and unelected bureaucrats can no longer weaponize their authority to enact their own personal agenda,ā€ Daniel Turner, executive director of the energy workers advocacy group, Power the Future, told The Center Square. ā€œIndustry for decades has been chocked by ever-changing regulations with penalties and fines and even criminal prosecution, all whims of the bureaucrat in charge. The American people are sick and tired of big government, and agencies like the EPA are back under the purview of the Congress and not some green billionaire whose think tank feeds the Administrator’s team with propaganda and lies.”

But the EPA is just one of many agencies facing a Congressional effort to undo years of federal rulemaking.

Comer noted that he has also joined lawmakers in sending letters to an array of agencies that face a similar review, including:

  • AmeriCorps
  • Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • Council on Environmental Quality
  • Department of Agriculture
  • Department of Commerce
  • Department of Education
  • Department of Energy
  • Department of the Interior
  • Department of Health and Human Services
  • Department of Homeland Security
  • Department of Labor
  • Department of State
  • Department of Transportation
  • Department of the Treasury
  • Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Environmental Protection Agency
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  • Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
  • National Credit Union Administration
  • National Labor Relations Board
  • Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
  • Office of the United States Trade Representative
  • Securities and Exchange Commission
  • Small Business Administration
  • Social Security Administration

D.C. Bureau Reporter

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

International

Pope Francis’ body on display at the Vatican until Friday

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Haynes, Snr. Vatican Correspondent

Visitors are invited to pray before the late pontiff’s coffin inside the basilica through Friday evening ahead of Saturday’s funeral.

Pope Francis’ remains were translated into St. Peter’s Basilica this morning, where they will now be on display for the faithful to pay their respects until Friday evening.

In a ceremony replete with Gregorian Chant throughout the procession, the bodily remains of Pope Francis were brought into the Vatican basilica from the chapel of the Casa Santa Martha guesthouse, where they had been lying in state on Tuesday.

Faithful and others wishing to view the late pope’s remains will now have a chance to do so prior to his funeral on Saturday:

  • Wednesday 23 April: 11:00 a.m. until midnight.
  • Thursday 24 April: 7:00 a.m. until midnight.
  • Friday 25 April: 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.

At 8 p.m. on Friday evening, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, the Papal Camerlengo, will preside over the right of closing of the pope’s coffin in readiness for his funeral the next morning.

Francis died at 7:35 a.m. on Monday morning, and his death was announced to the world a little over two hours later. In accordance with ecclesial law, his death was certified by the camerlengo that day and the papal apartments he used sealed – not to be opened again until the arrival of the new pontiff.

On Tuesday his remains lay in state in the chapel of the Casa Santa Martha guesthouse, which he had made his home for the duration of his 12-year reign rather than the Apostolic Palace and the papal apartments.

His death has triggered an outpouring of statements from world leaders expressing their sympathies, with many now due to be in attendance at Saturday’s funeral. Figures such as Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky, Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, and Prince William are expected at the Vatican this coming weekend.

Pope Francis’ coffin enters the Vatican, April 23, 2025. Ā©MichaelHaynes
©MichaelHaynes
Pope Francis is transferred into the Basilica at St Peter’s Square on April 23, 2025 in Vatican City, Vatican. Ā©Getty Images/Mario Tama

In addition, many thousands of pilgrims who had been due to attend the now cancelled canonization of Blessed Carlo Acutis are also expected to attend the funeral.

Pre-conclave General Congregation meetings have already started as of Tuesday morning, with the second taking place on Wednesday afternoon. These events provide an opportunity for cardinals to get to know one another, as well as to formalize practical details regarding the conclave.

Following the funeral, though, such meetings will take on an increasingly serious nature as cardinals look among themselves for a suitable candidate to become pope.

Continue Reading

International

New York Times publishes chilling new justification for assisted suicide

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Even happy, healthy lives without major issues can warrant needless ending if they are ‘complete.’

Notorious secular ā€œethicistā€ Peter Singer has co-authored an opinion piece in The New York TimesĀ positing a chilling new rationale for assisted suicide: the determination that one’s life is simply ā€œcomplete.ā€

Princeton psychologist Daniel KahnemanĀ died in March 2024 at age 90. His cause of death was not disclosed at the time, but a year later,Ā TheĀ Wall Street JournalĀ revealed that Kahneman had emailed friends the day before to tell them he was traveling to Switzerland to avail himself of the country’s legal physician-assisted suicide.

ā€œI think Danny wanted, above all, to avoid a long decline, to go out on his terms, to own his own death,ā€Ā WSJĀ journalist and longtime friend of the deceased Jason Zweig wrote. ā€œMaybe the principles of good decision-making that he had so long espoused — rely on data, don’t trust most intuitions, view the evidence in the broadest possible perspective — had little to do with his decision.ā€

On April 14,Ā TheĀ New York TimesĀ published aĀ guest essayĀ by the infamous Singer, aĀ pro-infanticideĀ Princeton bioethics professor, and philosophy professor Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek, who shared that they too knew of Kahneman’s plans and that days before he had told them, ā€œI feel I’ve lived my life well, but it’s a feeling. I’m just reasonably happy with what I’ve done. I would say if there is an objective point of view, then I’m totally irrelevant to it. If you look at the universe and the complexity of the universe, what I do with my day cannot be relevant.ā€

ā€œI have believed since I was a teenager that the miseries and indignities of the last years of life are superfluous, and I am acting on that belief,ā€ Kahneman reportedly said. ā€œI am still active, enjoying many things in life (except the daily news) and will die a happy man. But my kidneys are on their last legs, the frequency of mental lapses is increasing, and I am 90 years old. It is time to go.ā€

Singer and de Lazari-Radek argued that this was an eminently reasonable conclusion. ā€œ(I)f, after careful reflection, you decide that your life is complete and remain firmly of that view for some time, you are the best judge of what is good for you,ā€ they wrote. ā€œThis is especially clear in the case of people who are at an age at which they cannot hope for improvement in their quality of life.ā€

ā€œ(I)f we are to live well to the end, we need to be able to freely discuss when a life is complete, without shame or taboo,ā€ the authors added. ā€œSuch a discussion may help people to know what they really want. We may regret their decisions, but we should respect their choices and allow them to end their lives with dignity.ā€

Pro-lifers have longĀ warnedĀ that the euthanasia movement devalues life and preys on the ill and distraught by making serious medical issues (even non-terminal ones) into grounds to end one’s life. But Singer and de Lazari-Radek’s essay marks a new extreme beyond that point by asserting that even happy, healthy lives without major issues can warrant needless ending.

ā€œInstead of seeing every human life as having inherent value and dignity, Singer sees life as transactional: something you are allowed to keep by being happy, able-bodied, and productive — and something to be taken away if you are not,ā€ Cassy CookeĀ wroteĀ at Live Action News.

Support is available to talk those struggling with suicidal thoughts out of ending their lives. TheĀ Suicide & Crisis LifelineĀ can be reached by calling or texting 988.

Continue Reading

Trending

X