Which kinda means there was never an agreement on the actual bet amount, to be all nitty about it. 
lol wtf. I just realized this too. Haha.
Fuck it. Iām angle shooting that $2. 
3 Likes
Maybe international bets should take into account purchasing power parity or something. But also
3 Likes
I didnāt say it was an angle shot, but it could easily be perceived as one.
I assume youāre also saying that you are expecting to be paid in Canadian Dollars for any bets (that were made before this post) that you win.
Normally I specify but this was such a small for fun bet it didnāt cross my mind. I was planning on doing the same thing as he did and make it a donation since itās not worth trying to transfer $50 over the border because Americas banking system is still from the 1970s.
You guys are both good people. Its kind of funny tbh.
6 Likes
Siri what is 50 minus 46.02
3 Likes
You forgot to convert it to Canadian
1 Like
T-minus 1 year until SCOTUS gives their blessing for this bullshit.
Perhaps theyāre worried about the ramifications of the outcome but the outcome itself is not in doubt thatās for sure. I, for one, welcome our new god kings in robes overlords.
This is really the perfect issue for the donor class. Itās a massive fucking deal and nobody else cares. At least on abortion they get hammered at the polls.
1 Like
Honestly Iām surprised they waited this long. From what I recall they had a case teed up in 2018 to kill it but Rapenaugh got his appointment delayed by all the raping so he wasnāt there to hear it. Ended up going 5-3 in favor with Alito joining the libs in judgement but saying something along the lines of āweāll kill it next timeā. Given the rocket docket itās shocking it took them 5 more years to get around to killing it when itās gotta be in their top 3 priorities.
This is the quintessential āmake government small enough you can drown it in a bathtubā case. Itās the conservative wet dream for 100 years. It also hugely empowers the court so these narcissists are a lock to kill Chevron.
For clarification: Chevron has only been in place since the 80s.
The principle is way older than that.
Which principle? If you mean the starve the beast principle, I agree. I just wanted to clarify that Chevron hasnāt been around that long.
That and the idea the deference should be given to administrators to interpret law. Thatās an old idea. Chevron just changed it from a pragmatic thing to one underpinned by implied delegation from congress.
If they go back to Skidmore, itās not the end of the world. And from the immigration attorneys I talk to, they seem to think it will be an improvement in their area of law. The rationale underpinning Chevron makes sense for complex regulatory areas like the environment, so Iām not please that Chevron would be removed, but its logic was based on existing caselaw. Iām a little skeptical that it will make as big of a difference as we all fear. We will have to see what they replace it with. If they require Congress to speak specifically to each thing an agency regulates, that would be an unmitigated disaster.
I should add that if Gorsuch authors the opinion, and Iād bet he will since this has been his pet for forever, I donāt think he will go that far. If it were up to Thomas, I think he will say Congress has to speak to every specific issue an agency regulates.