Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
A foundational 1984 decision had required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, underpinning regulations on health care, safety and the environment.
This is what the decision by the Republican justices to allow “gratuities” for public officials creates an incentive for.
Does no one else see that Clarence Thomas (who has been accused [with proof] that he took millions in “gifts”) is sitting on a court that just overturned a rule the would hold him accountable to receiving those gifts?
Does no one else see that Clarence Thomas (who has been accused [with proof] that he took millions in “gifts”) is sitting on a court that just overturned a rule the would hold him accountable to receiving those gifts?
What the actual fuck?
Yeah we see it but we are talking about a different thing here